from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,
Richard H. Davidson, Judge.
appeals from a restitution order.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli Huser, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.
Britt appeals from a district court order compelling him to
pay restitution following his conviction for exercising
control over a stolen vehicle. Because we conclude his appeal
was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
December 9, 2015, the district court issued its final ruling
on restitution, ordering Britt to pay $11, 264.15. Britt
filed a motion for expanded findings and relief, pursuant to
Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), on December 16. The
court ruled on that motion on February 29, 2016. Britt filed
a notice of appeal on March 1.
long been the rule that only a "proper" rule
1.904(2) motion tolls the deadline for an appeal. See
Hedlund v. State, 875 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2016).
The propriety of a rule 1.904(2) motion depends on the nature
of the request it makes of the district court. Rule 1.904(2)
generally gives each party an opportunity to request a change
or modification to each adverse judgment entered against it
by the district court before deciding whether to incur the
time and expense of an appeal. A proper rule 1.904(2) motion
does not merely seek reconsideration of an adverse district
court judgment. Nor does it merely seek to rehash legal
issues adversely decided. A rule 1.904(2) motion is
ordinarily improper if it seeks to enlarge or amend a
district court ruling on a question of law involving no
underlying issues of fact. Likewise, a rule 1.904(2) motion
that asks the district court to amend or enlarge its prior
ruling based solely on new evidence is generally improper.
Ordinarily, a proper rule 1.904(2) motion asks the district
court to amend or enlarge either a ruling on a factual issue
or a ruling on a legal issue raised in the context of an
underlying factual issue based on the evidence in the record.
Nonetheless, when a party has presented an issue, claim, or
legal theory and the district court has failed to rule on it,
a rule 1.904(2) motion is [the] proper means by which to
preserve error and request a ruling from the district court.
When a rule 1.904(2) motion requests a ruling on an issue
properly presented to but not decided by the district court,
the motion is proper even if the issue is a purely legal one.
Homan v. Branstad, 887 N.W.2d 153, 161 (Iowa 2016)
raised several issues in his 1.904(2) motion. He used
identical language to introduce most of his claims:
"From the evidence and/or lack of evidence as a whole,
the court has failed to exercise discretion or abused its
discretion or has erred in presumptively finding or
concluding the State satisfied its burden of proving by a
preponderance of evidence" a relevant fact. He also
argued the court abused its discretion by imposing a
restitution amount greater than the amount requested by the
State. These claims do nothing more than rehash previous
arguments or raise a new argument for the first time. As a
result, the rule 1.904(2) motion was an improper one and did
not extend the time for appeal.See id. Britt's
deadline to appeal, absent a proper rule 1.904(2) motion, was
thirty days after the district court's ...