from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Mary E.
defendant appeals the restitution order entered following his
Brian Weiler, Davenport, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
a consolidated appeal by Tywon Stanton following his guilty
pleas in two separate cases. Both guilty pleas were to
third-degree burglary, and as part of the plea agreement, the
State agreed to dismiss six other charges. The filed written
plea agreement also memorialized, "[Stanton] agrees to
pay victim restitution in the amount to be determined by the
court; in addition [Stanton] agrees the State may file a
request for restitution in relation to Count I [(ongoing
criminal conduct)] within 30 days of sentencing." Later,
the agreement stated: "Unless expressly stated otherwise
in the plea agreement, [Stanton] shall be liable for
restitution under all counts regardless of charging
concessions contained within the plea agreement."
sentencing, the State filed a statement of pecuniary damages
and request for victim restitution, outlining the amount
requested for four victims. The total amount requested for
restitution amounted to $15, 134.45. Stanton filed an
objection to the amount of restitution, and the matter
proceeded to hearing.
hearing, the State reminded the court Stanton had agreed to
be responsible for the restitution associated with the
dismissed ongoing-criminal-conduct charge and had also asked
for the court to determine the amount of restitution. The
State also alerted the court that it had a lien on the cash
that was seized from Stanton on the day he was arrested. Of
the $22, 000 that was seized, approximately $12, 800 remained
available to pay the restitution in this case. Stanton
informed the court that he thought he should not be
responsible for the portion of the restitution claim
attributable to the charge for ongoing criminal conduct
because he did not plead guilty to it. Defense counsel
also asserted under Iowa Code section 627.6(14) (2015)
Stanton was entitled to an exemption of $1000 as the money
was "cash on hand" when he was arrested.
court ordered Stanton to pay the entire amount of the
restitution claim, stating:
Well, Mr. Stanton, you agreed as part of your plea agreement
you were going to make this restitution, and the money they
seized in Johnson County was properly seized from you and
held, and the State of Iowa put a garnishment on it, which
they are allowed to do under Iowa Code section 910.10(2)(g) .
. . . I appreciate that you may have children and need money
but, you know, you committed a crime, and you have to pay
restitution . . . and I'm going to go ahead and enter the
restitution orders as proposed by the State because
that's part of your plea agreement, and you committed
burglaries, and you have to pay restitution, including for
the ongoing criminal conduct count that was dismissed. Part
of that, you were going to make restitution pursuant to that
count, so I'm entering the order as proposed by the
appeals, asserting the court should have granted him the
$1000 exemption under section 627.6(14) and the court erred
in ordering restitution for the dismissed
ongoing-criminal-conduct charge without evidence or findings
of fact that those damages were related to his criminal
conduct. With respect to his first claim, the State asserts
Stanton failed to preserve error. While Stanton's
attorney did raise the issue to the district court, the court
did not rule on the claim.
It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues
must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district
court before we will decide them on appeal. When a district
court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party,
the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting
a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012)
(quoting Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537
(Iowa 2002)). While we are not concerned about the
"substance, logic, or detail in the district court's
decision, " the court's ruling must indicate the
court "considered the issue and necessarily ruled on
it" for the issue to be preserved. Id. Because
we have no indication the court considered the issue and
Stanton did not file a motion seeking the court to rule on
the issue, we find the issue ...