958 N.W.2d 545
Iowa2021Background
- In 2000 Holmes was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and robbery and was ordered to pay restitution "as later ordered." A 2001 supplemental order assessed victim assistance, court costs, and attorney fees but made no ability-to-pay finding.
- The DOC implemented a restitution plan deducting 20% from Holmes's institutional accounts; Holmes's direct appeal was affirmed.
- In October 2017 the district court found Holmes lacked the ability to pay attorney fees, but it did not address ability to pay other assessed costs or victim-assistance reimbursements.
- In August 2019 Holmes sought a restitution hearing under Iowa Code § 910.7; the October 2019 order found he could pay previously assessed attorney fees but did not rule on other costs. Holmes moved to enlarge; the court denied the motion and Holmes appealed in November 2019.
- While the appeal was pending, the legislature enacted S.F. 457 (2020), converting prior temporary/supplemental restitution orders that lacked ability-to-pay determinations into permanent orders and requiring defendants to seek relief first in district court under the amended § 910.7; Holmes requested an ability-to-pay determination in district court on July 31, 2020, but the court stayed that request pending the appeal.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held S.F. 457 requires dismissal of Holmes's appeal so the district court may apply the statute's procedures (lift the stay and determine Holmes's reasonable ability to pay under § 910.7 and § 910.2A).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Holmes's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holmes preserved error on lack of ability-to-pay findings for court costs and victim-assistance payments | Holmes did not specifically request an ability-to-pay finding for court costs, so error is not preserved | Holmes raised the issue in his 2019 restitution request and filed a motion to enlarge when court failed to rule, which preserves error | Holmes preserved error; motion to enlarge sufficed to preserve unruled issues |
| Whether S.F. 457 bars this appellate review and requires dismissal/remand to district court | S.F. 457 §73/§80 converts the order to a permanent restitution order and requires exhaustion in district court under §910.7 before appellate review; therefore the appeal must be dismissed | Holmes sought appellate relief for the absent ability-to-pay findings and argues review should proceed | The appeal is dismissed; Holmes must exhaust district-court remedies under S.F. 457 (lift stay and proceed under §910.7 and §910.2A) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hawk, 952 N.W.2d 314 (Iowa 2020) (held S.F. 457 converts certain restitution orders and requires district-court determination first except where a final order already includes an ability-to-pay finding)
- State v. Waigand, 953 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 2021) (restitution orders reviewed for correction of errors at law)
- State v. Gross, 935 N.W.2d 695 (Iowa 2019) (preservation-of-error principles for appeals)
- Homan v. Branstad, 887 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 2016) (motion to enlarge can preserve issues when the district court fails to rule)
- State v. Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2010) (standards cited for restitution-review framework)