State of Iowa v. Zedekiah Douglas Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469

Defendant Zedekiah Kurtz pleaded guilty to fourth-degree theft and waived the 15‑day delay and reporting of the sentencing hearing.
The district court sentenced Kurtz to 30 days in jail, fines, surcharges, $400 victim restitution to his brother, taxed court costs, and ordered payment of court‑appointed attorney fees under Iowa Code § 815.9, with a $50/month payment plan.
The court-appointed attorney filed a certification showing $66.00 in fees (1.1 hours).
Kurtz appealed, arguing the court erred by ordering payment of court‑appointed attorney fees (and alleged crime victim assistance reimbursement) without first determining his reasonable ability to pay.
The State argued the ability‑to‑pay issue is not directly appealable under State v. Jose because ability to pay relates to the restitution payment plan rather than the restitution amount.
The Court of Appeals concluded both the plan of restitution and the payment schedule were included in the sentencing order, so Kurtz could directly appeal; because the sentencing order did not indicate the court considered his ability to pay, the court vacated and remanded that portion of the sentence for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kurtz may directly appeal the court’s failure to consider his ability to pay court‑appointed attorney fees	State: ability‑to‑pay challenges are not separately appealable (per Jose)	Kurtz: sentencing order included restitution amount and payment plan, so appealable	Court: appealable because both plan of restitution and payment plan were in the sentencing order
Whether the court erred by ordering payment of court‑appointed attorney fees without determining Kurtz’s reasonable ability to pay	State: the court may have considered ability to pay at unrecorded hearing (waiver of reporting)	Kurtz: no record shows the court considered ability to pay as required by statute/constitutional precedent	Court: sentencing order lacks any indication the court considered ability to pay; vacated that portion and remanded for determination
Whether the defendant waived review by waiving reporting and failing to provide hearing record	State: waiver of reporting and absent record prevents review	Kurtz: sentencing order itself must reflect exercise of discretion when hearing not reported	Court: district court must show on the sentencing order that it exercised discretion when payment plan is set and hearing was unreported; failure requires vacatur and remand

State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2001) (distinguishing plan of restitution from payment plan and addressing appealability)
State v. Janz, 358 N.W.2d 547 (Iowa 1984) (sentencing orders and appealability of incorporated orders)
State v. Harrison, 351 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 1984) (two‑part restitution structure: plan and payment plan)
State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 1987) (reasonable ability to pay is required for certain restitution orders)
Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa 2000) (constitutional prerequisite of determining defendant’s ability to pay)
State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 2014) (when hearings are unreported after waiver, sentencing orders must show exercise of discretion)