from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Mark E. Kruse
(guilty plea) and John G. Linn (sentencing), Judges.
appeals the district court's order requiring him to pay
restitution following his convictions for sexual exploitation
of a minor and lascivious acts with a child.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
Delacy appeals the district court's order requiring him
to pay restitution following his convictions for sexual
exploitation of a minor and lascivious acts with a child. We
deny Delacy's claim the restitution order and plan is
improper. We affirm the restitution order and restitution
Background Facts & Proceedings
pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, in
violation of Iowa Code section 728.12(1) (2015), and
lascivious acts with a child, in violation of section
709.8(1)(a), both class "C" felonies. On April 25,
2016, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to
exceed ten years on each count, to be served consecutively.
The court stated on the record, "The defendant shall pay
court costs, victim restitution, if there is any, and the
cost of court-appointed counsel. Based on the defendant's
financial situation, $100 is the amount that I conclude the
defendant is reasonably able to pay."
filed his first notice of appeal on May 10, claiming he
received ineffective assistance because defense counsel did
not inform him he could be assessed surcharges. We affirmed
his convictions and preserved his claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel for postconviction relief. See
State v. Delacy, No. 16-0827, 2017 WL 1735684, at *5
(Iowa Ct. App. May 3, 2017).
State filed a statement of pecuniary loss on October 14,
2015, showing restitution totaling $2347.92 to the Iowa Crime
Victim Compensation Program. Prior to Delacy's appeal, on
May 10, the State filed an application for restitution,
asking the court to amend the judgment entry to require
Delacy to pay restitution in this amount. The court entered
an order on May 11, the day after Delacy appealed, ordering
Delacy to pay restitution of $2347.92. A restitution plan was
filed on August 17, 2017, showing Delacy owed costs of
$694.49, fines of $2000.00, surcharges of $700.00, and
restitution of $2347.92. Delacy appeals the court's
August 17 order.
claims a procedural due process violation because restitution
was ordered against him on May 11, 2016, without notice and
an opportunity to be heard. Our review of a restitution order
is for the correction of errors at law. State v.
Coleman, 907 N.W.2d 124, 134 (Iowa 2018). On
constitutional issues our review is de novo. State v.
Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 810 (Iowa 2017).
defendant challenging a restitution order entered as part of
the original sentence has two options: to file a petition in
district court under section 910.7, or to file a direct
appeal." State v. Blank, 570 N.W.2d 924, 926
(Iowa 1997) (citing State v. Janz, 358 N.W.2d 547,
549 (Iowa 1987)). If the time for a direct appeal has expired
at the time a restitution order is entered, the defendant may
file a petition under section 910.7 within thirty days for
the action to be considered an extension of the criminal
proceedings. Id. Barring a timely direct appeal or
petition under section 910.7, a defendant may still file an