from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Mary E.
Hering appeals from the denial of his motion for a
Hering, Fort Madison, self-represented appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and William A. Hill, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Hering appeals from the denial of his April 4, 2017 motion
for a restitution hearing. Our review is for correction of
errors at law. State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271, 274
2004, Hering was convicted of one count of first-degree
murder and two counts of attempted murder. See State v.
Hering, No. 14-1343, 2016 WL 3271910, at *1 (Iowa Ct.
App. June 15, 2016). "An order of restitution was filed
on July 9, 2004, which ordered Hering to pay restitution of
$150, 000 to the estate of [the decedent] and $27, 409.84 to
the Crime Victim Compensation Program." Id.
Hering challenged the restitution order, and this court
affirmed the part of the district court's ruling finding
the restitution order requiring Hering to pay $150, 000 to
the victim's estate had been satisfied through the
payment of the judgment in a separate civil action.
Id. But we reversed in part, eliminating the
requirement Hering reimburse the Crime Victim Compensation
Program $27, 409.84. Id.
On January 10, 2017, the district court issued the following
On 12/20/2016, [Hering] filed a request for a restitution
hearing. His attached Restitution Account activity shows the
Department of Corrections [(IDOC)] has withheld $2350.31 from
his account. Hering claims his restitution obligation has
been satisfied and no such funds should have been withdrawn
from his account.
The State does not resist the application.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall first
use the funds to pay any unpaid court costs, attorney fees or
other assessed sums due and unpaid and the balance shall
refun[d] to Hering's prisoner account, the sum of
January 24, Hering filed a "Motion to Produce
Supplemental Restitution Orders and Itemized Bill, "
which the district court considered to be a motion for
discovery. The district court denied the motion "because
the docket in the matter is available to [Hering]" and
"there is no pending litigation and [Hering] cannot
request discovery of a non-party when no litigation is
April 4, Hering filed another petition for restitution
hearing, asserting the clerk of court had not refunded any
money to his prison account and "it is unclear why"
there had been no refund. He asserted he "has satisfied
his court ordered plan of restitution in full and the record
confirms that the money IDOC withheld from his inmate account
was not utilized to satisfy his restitution plan." He
also challenged IDOC's procedures for withholding money
from his inmate account and claimed violations of his due
process rights. As a remedy, Hering requested the court
"issue an order requiring [IDOC] to refund his inmate
account with ...