January 11, 2017
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
JOHN ROBERT HOYMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Jeffrey D.
Hoyman appeals the district court's restitution order.
E. Weinhardt and Todd M. Lantz of Weinhardt & Logan,
P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
Hoyman worked as the Indianola City Attorney and billed the
City for services he did not perform. On discovering the
improper billings, the State charged Hoyman with several
crimes. A jury found him guilty of first-degree fraudulent
practice. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed his judgment and
sentence based on an instructional error and remanded the
case for a new trial. State v. Hoyman, 863 N.W.2d 1,
19-20 (Iowa 2015). The court also reversed a restitution
order after finding there was "no . . . verdict of
guilty . . . upon which a judgment of conviction was rendered
to authorize restitution."
remand, Hoyman pled guilty to third-degree fraudulent
practice but contested restitution. The district court
rejected his challenge and ordered "Hoyman to pay
restitution to the City of Indianola in the amount of $35,
333.24." Hoyman appealed.
means payment of pecuniary damages to a victim in an amount
and in the manner provided by the offender's plan of
restitution." Iowa Code § 910.1(4) (2015).
"Pecuniary damages, " in turn, "means all
damages to the extent not paid by an insurer, which a victim
could recover against the offender in a civil action arising
out of the same facts or event, except punitive damages and
damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of
consortium." Id. at 910.1(3). "The amount
of restitution is not limited by the parameters of the
offense for which the defendant enters a guilty plea . . .
." State v. Watts, 587 N.W.2d 750, 751 (Iowa
contends the State failed to prove (1) an actual loss by the
City, or (2) the elements of a civil cause of action. Our
review is on error, with the district court's findings
binding us if supported by substantial evidence. State v.
Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 2013).
"actual loss" argument goes as follows: "he
worked as much time as his bills represented, " the
State failed to "compare the total amount of [his]
billings with the total amount of legal services actually
performed, " and the State "could not say that [he]
worked fewer hours than was represented on his bills."
In his view, he "merely submitted invoices, which the
City voluntarily paid, " "did not control the
City's property, and . . . did not take money
district court found otherwise. The court stated:
Beginning in 2006, [Hoyman] began to bill the city for
prosecutions that he did not perform. [Hoyman] characterized
the practice as billing for the "wrong names" or
"incorrect names." The practice was more properly
characterized as a fabrication of trials, as [Hoyman]
admitted during cross-examination. [Hoyman] admitted to
investigating officers that he made up case names by looking
up names in the phone book, a Warren County plat map, or by
listing people he personally knew. [Hoyman] also billed the
city for trials held on days that no trials were scheduled or
There is no doubt that [Hoyman] made fraudulent
misrepresentations that he worked cases that he did not. . .
. He put the case names on billing sheets and represented
that he had worked on those cases. He knew they did not
exist. He expected that the city would pay him for the cases
he billed, and the city paid him accordingly for several
court rejected Hoyman's assertion that he made up the
over-billed prosecution time by under-billing for other
services, reasoning as follows:
[Hoyman] cannot bill the city for hours based on fictitious
prosecutions with the justification that he really spent the
hours performing general counsel work. . . . If he really
spent the time doing general counsel work, he needed to bill
it so it could be independently reviewed, as opposed to
pulling names from a telephone book and claiming they were
Substantial evidence supports these findings and
determinations. Although the court did not use the
"actual loss" terminology Hoyman deems critical,
the court found just that when it determined the City paid
him for work he billed but did not perform. See Hubby v.
State, 331 N.W.2d 690, 695 (Iowa 1983) ("[W]e
assume as fact an unstated finding that is necessary to
support the judgment . . . .").
the State quantified the City's loss in a detailed
spreadsheet. The district court used the spreadsheet to
calculate the restitution amount, but gave Hoyman the benefit
of the doubt at every juncture, narrowing the time frame for
recovery and accepting the lower of two proposed figures. The
final restitution figure reflected the City's actual
second argument is tied to the first. He contends
"restitution to a victim depend[s] on what the victim
could obtain in a civil action against the defendant, "
and "[f]or the same reasons that [his] false entries did
not cause the City to suffer a loss, the City would not be
able to recover $35, 333.24 in a civil lawsuit against
[him]." Having found that the State established a loss
by the City, this argument fails.
affirm the restitution order.