from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, David P.
Odekirk (restitution) and Richard D. Stochl (modification),
inmate appeals the dismissal of his petition to modify
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
case presents questions related to whether and when an
offender is entitled to the assistance of counsel and a
hearing to challenge a restitution order for the
reimbursement of room and board expenses related to the
pretrial detention of the offender.
Quijas, Jr., was convicted of attempted murder, in violation
of Iowa Code section 707.11 (2013). On July 11, 2016, the
district court sentenced Quijas to an indeterminate term of
incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years and ordered
Quijas to pay court costs. The district court found Quijas
did not have the reasonable ability to pay court-appointed
26, 2016, the Fayette County Sheriff's office filed a
room and board reimbursement claim pursuant to Iowa Code
sections 356.7 and 910.1(4). The district court granted the
request and entered judgment on the same day. On September
20, 2016, the Department of Corrections filed a restitution
plan of payment, which stated, "Pursuant to Chapter 910
of the Code of Iowa, the above listed inmate has been ordered
to pay the county Clerk of Court 20 percent of all credits to
this inmate's institutional account." The
restitution plan of payment noted Quijas was ordered to pay
$34, 384.40, which represented room and board plus additional
17, 2017, roughly ten months later, Quijas filed a pro se
petition to modify restitution pursuant to Iowa Code section
910.7. In his petition, Quijas argued he was entitled to a
hearing on restitution. He also argued requiring him to pay
pre-trial detention costs was "tantamount to debtors
prison" and violated his right not to be subject to
cruel and unusual punishment. On May 25, 2017, the district
court entered an order taking no action because Quijas's
direct appeal was still pending. Subsequently, Quijas filed a
motion to enlarge and amend the district court's order.
In response, the district court entered the following order:
Defendant filed a motion to modify restitution. He complains
about being assessed Sheriff fees for incarceration. The
court did not require him to reimburse the state for
attorney's fees but the order did not excuse his payment
of the sheriff's fees.
hearing is necessary on this issue. The motion is Denied.
Quijas timely filed this appeal.
review restitution orders for correction of errors at
law." State v. Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640, 642
(Iowa 2010). "When reviewing a restitution order, we
determine whether the court's findings lack substantial
evidentiary support, or whether the court has not properly
applied the law." Id. We review the district
court's denial of a restitution hearing pursuant to Iowa
Code section 910.7 for an abuse of discretion. See State
v. Blank, 570 N.W.2d 924, 927 (Iowa 1997); State v.
Long, No. 17-0234, 2018 WL 2230229, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.
May 16, 2018). To the extent any constitutional issues are
raised, our review is de novo. See State v. Tague,
676 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 2004).
directly addressing Quijas's claims, we set forth