State of Iowa v. Michael J. Alexander, Jr., 16-0669

Michael J. Alexander pled guilty to willful injury and possession of a firearm by a felon; sentencing and restitution order were entered the same day (Feb. 29, 2016).
Alexander submitted a financial affidavit showing about $2,400 monthly income and listed $550 monthly obligations; he waived a presentence investigation and other procedural delays.
The court sentenced Alexander to prison (up to five years), a suspended fine, surcharge, waived appointed counsel fees, and ordered restitution: court costs (~$441.58) and pecuniary damages "to be determined at a later time."
The sentencing order included a plan of payment (DOC to set a plan; minimum $50/month if DOC delay) and the court found Alexander "reasonably able to pay."
Alexander appealed the restitution finding, arguing the court abused its discretion and violated due process by finding he had ability to pay before restitution amounts were finalized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution order was appealable and whether court erred finding Alexander reasonably able to pay	State: Order incomplete so not appealable; if appealable, record supports finding of ability to pay	Alexander: Court abused discretion and violated due process by finding ability to pay before restitution amount was determined	Appeal dismissed: order incomplete (pecuniary damages reserved), so not directly appealable; defendant must await a complete order or seek modification before appeal

State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2001) (standard for reviewing restitution and appealability principles)
State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 2001) (review standard for restitution orders)
State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (complete restitution order includes both plan of restitution and plan of payment)
State v. Wagner, 484 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (scope of mandatory restitution under Iowa Code)
State v. Jackson, 601 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 1999) (incomplete restitution order not appealable; must exhaust modification remedy)
State v. Swartz, 601 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 1999) (same principle on appealability of restitution orders)
State v. Harrison, 351 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 1984) (distinction between plan of restitution and plan of payment)
State v. Johnson, 887 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (describes components of restitution order)
State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 1987) (constitutional requirement to determine reasonable ability to pay before ordering criminal restitution)
Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa 2000) (ability-to-pay requirement necessary to sustain restitution statute constitutionally)