984 N.W.2d 449
Iowa2023Background
- February 12, 2020: Patterson rear-ended James Tidwell, causing serious injuries and substantial vehicle damage.
- Patterson was charged in two matters: a simple-misdemeanor failure-to-maintain-control citation (NTA0948898) and a three-count information including serious-injury-by-vehicle (reckless) felony (OWOM088283).
- Patterson pled guilty to the felony reckless-serious-injury count; other counts and the misdemeanor were dismissed per plea agreement, and the court reserved a specific restitution amount at sentencing ($TBD).
- The State later moved to amend sentence to order restitution of $42,100.92; after a hearing the district court awarded $34,512.93 (matching Tidwell’s 2019 W-2) for lost wages and cross-filed the order in both the felony and dismissed misdemeanor cases.
- Patterson appealed both filings. The Iowa Supreme Court declined discretionary/certiorari review in the dismissed misdemeanor case, granted certiorari in the felony case, and ultimately upheld the restitution award as supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary or certiorari review should be granted in the dismissed misdemeanor case | Sought certiorari/discretionary review because restitution in dismissed cases raises important, recurring questions | State said restitution was not actually ordered/enforceable in the dismissed misdemeanor and did not press review | Court declined to grant review; appeal dismissed in the misdemeanor case |
| Whether Patterson has a statutory right to appeal the postsentencing restitution order in the felony case | Claimed a right to appeal, and alternatively asserted equal protection/due process require an appeal of right | §910.3(10) and §910.7(5) make post-sentencing restitution review available by writ of certiorari, not appeal as of right | Court held certiorari is the proper avenue; no appeal of right |
| Constitutional challenge to certiorari-only review (equal protection/due process) | Argued restitution resembles civil damages and denial of appeal of right violates equal protection and due process | State argued Patterson identified no harm from certiorari process and procedures are adequate | Court did not resolve constitutional claims; found certiorari sufficient and proceeded with that review |
| Whether the restitution award ($34,512.93) lacked substantial evidentiary support | Argued award unsupported: no medical/expert proof of lost earnings, COVID/layoff factors, and Patterson should receive credit for $6,000 AG payment | Tidwell’s credible testimony and 2019 W-2 provided a reasonable basis to infer lost 2020 earnings; AG payment did not fully offset seasonal unemployment | Court held the award was supported by substantial evidence and was not illegal; writ annulled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Propps, 897 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2017) (discusses scope of appellate jurisdiction for criminal appeals)
- Lozano Campuzano v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 940 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2020) (certiorari lies where court exceeded jurisdiction or acted illegally)
- Weissenburger v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 740 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2007) (certiorari standards)
- Bousman v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 630 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2001) (liberal interpretation of certiorari relief)
- State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 828 N.W.2d 607 (Iowa 2013) (illegality occurs when findings lack substantial evidentiary support)
- State Pub. Def. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 747 N.W.2d 218 (Iowa 2008) (standards for certiorari review of district court rulings)
- Burns v. Bd. of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698 (Iowa 1993) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Burnett, 160 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1968) (damages may be recovered if there is a reasonable basis to infer the amount)
- Vohs v. Dist. Comm'rs, 218 N.W.2d 595 (Iowa 1974) (deference in substantial-evidence review)
- Reisner v. Bd. of Trs. of Fire Ret. Sys., 203 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1973) (appellate review deference when evidence supports either outcome)
- State v. Young, 863 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa 2015) (judicial restraint and avoiding undecided important questions without adversarial briefing)