Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Moreno

Court of Appeal of Iowa

September 18, 2013

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICK NEILL MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil, District Associate Judge.

Defendant appeals the restitution order entered following his conviction for fourth-degree criminal mischief.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Patrick Moreno, Cedar Falls, pro se.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Brooke Jacobsen, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J. [*] Bower, J. takes no part.

MAHAN, S.J.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings.

On October 15, 2010, Patrick Moreno entered a written guilty plea to certain misdemeanor offenses.[1] The district court accepted his guilty plea, and he was sentenced on the same day. Moreno's prison sentences were suspended, and he was placed on probation. The sentencing order required restitution for fines, surcharges, court costs, and court-appointed attorney fees. See Iowa Code § 910.2 (2009). He did not appeal.

On December 3, 2010, the county attorney filed a restitution notice stating the victim had suffered damages of $527.08. No court action was taken after the filing of this notice. On January 26, 2011, more than thirty days after the filing of the restitution notice, Moreno filed a pro se application for a restitution hearing. A hearing was held on February 18, 2011.[2] The district court entered an order indicating Moreno appeared pro se at the hearing. The court determined Moreno should pay restitution in the amount of $412.17 for damages caused as the result of the charge of fourth-degree criminal mischief. Moreno filed a notice of appeal. He did not challenge the amount of restitution ordered at the hearing. Instead, he argued he had the right to counsel at the restitution hearing, and the district court did not adequately determine whether he waived his right to counsel.

II. Standard of Review.

We review constitutional issues de novo. See State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606, 612 (Iowa 2009).

III. Merits.

From the record presented on appeal, the first time the issue of the right to counsel at the restitution hearing was raised was in a pro se document titled, "Notice of Appeal and Request ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.