from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Lars G.
appeals the district court decision denying his motion to
quash the garnishment of funds held by the State.
W. Bruzek and Julia C. Zalenski, Assistant State Public
Defenders, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
Stanton appeals the district court decision denying his
motion to quash the garnishment of funds held by the State.
To the extent Stanton is arguing the district court should
have granted his motion to return seized property, the
district court granted the motion. We find the district court
did not err in concluding the State could proceed with
garnishment proceedings, although the funds were held by the
State as seized property at the time the garnishment
proceedings were initiated. Other issues raised by Stanton
have not been preserved for our review. We affirm the
decision of the district court.
Background Facts & Proceedings
April 22, 2015, Stanton was charged with burglary in the
third degree in Johnson County, in violation of Iowa Code
section 713.6A(1) (2015), for taking cell phones from a
business. When Stanton was arrested, he was in possession of
$6900, which the State seized. Stanton pled guilty to the
charge. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to
exceed five years. The sentence was suspended, and Stanton
was placed on probation. Of the amount seized, $1825 was
applied to fines and restitution in the third-degree burglary
filed a motion on December 15, 2015, for the return of seized
property, pursuant to section 809.3. He claimed the State was
improperly keeping the funds seized at the time he was
arrested. At a hearing on January 13, 2016, the State agreed
$2685.31 held by the Iowa City Police Department should be
returned to Stanton. An order returning the money to Stanton
State then filed a general execution seeking to collect the
amount of $2389.69 for unpaid judgments against Stanton based
on previous criminal charges. The State filed a notice of
garnishment, seeking to collect $2389.69 held by the Iowa
City Police Department from the $6900 seized in April 2015.
hearing on January 29, 2016, the State agreed it was not
making any claim under chapter 809 for the remaining balance
of the $6900. The district court granted the motion for
return of seized property but stated its ruling did not
address the separate issue of whether the State could garnish
February 13, 2016, the court determined the State could
pursue garnishment of the money. The court stated, "The
fact the monies the State seeks to garnish were subject to
proceedings under Chapter 809 of the Iowa Code at the time
the garnishment was instituted does not bar garnishment
proceedings by the State."
filed a motion to quash the garnishment. He claimed he was a
professional gambler and the cash represented amounts he won,
which he asserted were the same as earnings, and should
therefore be exempt from garnishment under Iowa Code section
642.21 and 15 U.S.C. § 1672(a). The court entered an
order on September 8, 2016, denying the motion to quash. The
court found, "Defendant's gambling proceeds [are]
not subject to the exemption applicable to earnings under
either State or Federal Law." The court stated,
"Gambling winnings are not compensation paid ...