from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James B.
Malloy, District Associate Judge.
review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
seeks further review of court of appeals decision affirming
restitution judgment. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS
VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND
REVERSED IN PART.
L. Dirks of Dirks Law Firm, Ames, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, Jessica Reynolds, County Attorney, and Adam
Kenworthy, for appellee.
appeal, we review the level of scrutiny for a criminal
restitution award. The operator of a training course for
commercial truck drivers imposed a $1900 "fine" on
its student for the loss of a paperback study guide, a
multiple of the full cost of the course that included the
guide. The study guide was in a backpack stolen from the
student's parked car. The student has not paid the fine,
and his automobile insurer determined the paperback guide had
no value. The district court presumed that $1900 far exceeded
the actual cost to print the guide but nevertheless ordered
the defendant who pled guilty to the theft to pay that amount
in victim restitution. The defendant appealed to challenge
that amount alone, and we transferred the case to the court
of appeals, which affirmed. We assuaged our sticker shock by
granting the defendant's application for further review.
that the scope-of-liability analysis in sections 29 and 33 of
the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and
Emotional Harm (Am. Law Inst. 2010) [hereinafter Restatement
(Third) of Torts] applies in criminal restitution
determinations. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse
the $1900 fine-based restitution award as punitive and
unsupported by substantial evidence.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
October 8 and 14, 2016, police received multiple reports of
vehicle break-ins at a parking garage in Ames, Iowa. Officers
interviewed victims and reviewed surveillance video from
security cameras. One victim reported that her stolen credit
card was being used at a local liquor store and bar. Officers
went to that vicinity and approached a man recognized from
the video. The man, Terran Roache, attempted to flee.
Officers apprehended him after a brief pursuit. Roache
possessed property stolen from several of the victims and a
State charged Roache with eleven counts: two counts of
criminal mischief in the second degree in violation of Iowa
Code sections 716.1, 716.2, and 716.4; six counts of burglary
in the third degree in violation of sections 713.1 and
713.6A(2); one count of possession of burglar's tools in
violation of section 713.7; one count of unlawful use of a
credit card in violation of sections 715A.1, 715A.6(1), and
715A.6(2)(c); and one count of theft in the second
degree in violation of sections 714.1 and 714.2(2). In
January 2017, Roache, pursuant to a written plea agreement,
entered a guilty plea to one count of criminal mischief and
one count of burglary. He agreed to pay restitution on all
eleven counts. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the
remaining nine counts. At the plea hearing, after engaging in
a colloquy with Roache, the district court accepted his
district court sentenced Roache to an indeterminate prison
term not to exceed five years for criminal mischief and two
years for burglary, with the sentences to run concurrently
and with credit for time served. The court dismissed the
remaining counts but ordered Roache to pay restitution on all
eleven counts consistent with his plea agreement. The court
gave the State thirty days to file a pecuniary damages
statement itemizing the amount of restitution each victim was
seeking. See Iowa Code § 910.3 (2016).
State submitted a pecuniary damages statement seeking a total
of $4515.80 in restitution to reimburse Roache's victims
for vehicle damage and stolen property. The court approved
the amount in full, but gave Roache thirty days to object.
timely filed a written objection to two items: $1900 to
replace Jordan Hagedon's stolen study guide and $958.72
to repair Haoran Wang's windshield. Roache requested a
hearing on his objections.
restitution hearing, Hagedon testified he found his Hyundai
Santa Fe with a broken window and his backpack missing from
the backseat. The study guide, a laptop, a laptop charger, a
change of clothes, and prescription eyeglasses were inside
the backpack. Neither the backpack nor its contents were
recovered. Hagedon submitted a claim to his insurance
company. The insurance company determined the study guide had
no value, but reimbursed Hagedon for the cost of the
remaining items, less his $500 deductible. Hagedon also
sought the $500 deductible in restitution, and Roache does
not dispute the award of that amount.
was enrolled in a course through Northland CDL Training &
Licensing to obtain his commercial driver's license
(CDL). As part of the course, Northland issued Hagedon a
"Pre-Trip Inspection Study Guide." The study guide
was soft-covered, approximately six inches wide by eight or
ten inches long, and between a quarter- and half-inch thick.
Two weeks before the theft, Hagedon had signed
Northland's "check-out agreement" for the study
guide, which stated,
I, Jordan Hagedon am a student in the CDL Driver Prep. Course
that includes the use of the "Pre-Trip Inspection Study
Guide", a published, marked and copyright[ed] booklet,
and the sole property of Northland CDL Training, © 2012.
I was made fully aware at the opening class session that I am
responsible for returning aforementioned study guide. It was
explained fully that if I did not complete ALL portions of
the assignments I AM NOT eligible to continue with
the CDL Skills testing conducted with a tractor/trailer by
the college staff.
By not returning the said study guide on my final testing
date, I also fully understand that in addition to a fine for
claiming the booklet was lost, I will be listed as incomplete
for that assignment and may be deemed as not eligible to be
tested for a CDL, thus having any test results become Null
and Void. In that event, I fully understand and agree that I
may not be issued a CDL regardless of the outcome of the
The "Pre-Trip Inspection Study Guide" text is
copyright protected. Any use in an unauthorized manner, the
copyright holders will pursue damages to the full extent of
the copyright infringement laws, according to Chapter Five,
Article 504 of the U.S. Copyright Act, each infringement
carries a minimum $750 and maximum $30, 000 penalty, while
willful infringement carries a maximum penalty of $150, 000.
This in addition to court orders to pay all legal fees
I understand and agree with these terms and conditions on
this date with my pledge to return the Pre-Trip Inspection
Study Guide when I come for my final testing day or by mail
to the above address if for any reason I do not complete the
I am taking Study Guide Number 1895.
agreement was silent as to the amount of the fine Northland
would charge Hagedon if he failed to return the study guide.
October 10, two days after the theft, but before Roache's
arrest, Hagedon signed another Northland document that for
the first time set the dollar amount of the fine at $1900,
I was made fully aware at the opening class session that I am
responsible for the "Pre-Trip Inspection Study
Guide" and by not returning it would result in a FINE
(see attached copy of presentation slide, class handout and
check-out agreement signed by the student). The
"Pre-Trip Inspection Study Guide" book I was issued
was Number 01895.
By losing and not returning the said study guide on my final
testing date, I also fully understand I will be charged a
fine of 4X the course tuition. The calculated charge for this
course is $1, 900 (one thousand, nine hundred
attached presentation slide describes the study guide and
states, "You MUST Return [the study guide] To
Us When You Come For Your Phase 3 Training/Testing. YOU WILL
BE CHARGED A FINE IF YOU LOSE IT!!!" The handout
attached to the contract is a letter from Randy Grey, Lead
Instructor, stating in part, "The Study Guide Is
Copyright Protected And Is On LOAN To You.
It MUST Be Returned When You Come For Final Testing.
Failure to return it will result in a COSTLY
FINE." No dollar amount of the fine was mentioned
in the handout or slide.
has not paid Northland any amount for the stolen study guide,
but has an outstanding $1900 balance with Northland for the
full amount of its fine. Hagedon testified that
"[Northland has] been waiting for what we would hear
from restitution." Hagedon has completed Northland's
course and received his CDL.
cross-examination, Hagedon agreed that the value of the study
guide was not $1900. The court asked Hagedon if he had talked
to Northland about waiving the fine because the study guide
was stolen. Hagedon replied,
I did. All they said was that they reiterated the fact that
people have not returned them in the past, and they do charge
the four times the cost of the class. And I did ask that, and
they said that if I did get money out of the restitution,
they'd like to see that, because it's still a risk to
them, I guess, with their copyrighting or their-they wrote
that book, they publish that book themselves, and they
didn't want that getting out. And any restitution that
came out of this, they would still like to get. I haven't
spoke[n] with them since probably the day of the class.
testified he did not know what would happen if he failed to
pay the fine or if the fine was omitted from the restitution
written ruling, the district court ordered Roache to pay
$3557.08 in restitution, including $1900 for Hagedon's
study guide. In its ruling, the district court found
[t]he "damage" to the victim for failing to return
the study guide came to $1, 900. But for the defendant's
criminal actions, [Hagedon] would not have been assessed that
"fine." The Court would presume that $1, 900 far
exceeds the actual cost to print the study guide, but the
actual cost of the study guide does not reimburse [Hagedon]
for the loss he sustained as a result of the defendant's
the State nor the victim introduced evidence on Wang's
$958.72 claim for his windshield repair, and accordingly, the
court disallowed that amount.
appealed, challenging only the $1900 restitution award for
the study guide. We transferred the case to the court of
appeals. The court of appeals determined that the $1900 award
was supported by substantial evidence and Hagedon's
"loss" in that amount was causally related to
Roache's criminal activities. The court of appeals
affirmed the district court's restitution award in full.
We granted Roache's application for further review.
Standard of Review.
review the district court's restitution order for
correction of errors at law. State v. Iowa Dist.
Ct., 889 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Iowa 2017). "In 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.'" State
v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 2013) (quoting
State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa
2001)). "Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind
would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion."
Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d at 165 (quoting Hasselman
v. Hasselman, 596 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1999)).
decide whether the district court erred by including the
$1900 fine for the stolen study guide in the restitution
order. We begin with an overview of the law governing
restitution. We adopt the scope-of-liability analysis in the
Restatement (Third) of Torts for criminal restitution cases.
We then address Roache's challenges to the $1900 award
and conclude the district court erred by awarding that amount
without substantial evidentiary support.
purpose of restitution is twofold. It not only serves to
protect the public by compensating victims for criminal
activities, but it also serves to rehabilitate the
defendant." State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541,
548 (Iowa 2000). "Unlike other forms of penal sanctions,
restitution forces the offender to answer directly for the
consequences of his or her actions."
Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d at 165. We thoroughly
reviewed the history of criminal restitution in State v.
Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640, 642-43 (Iowa 2010) (surveying
state and federal legislation and caselaw).
Code chapter 910 governs criminal restitution.
"Restitution is mandatory '[i]n all criminal cases
in which there is a plea of guilty, verdict of guilty, or
special verdict upon which a judgment of conviction is
rendered.'" Hagen, 840 N.W.2d at 149
(alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Code § 910.2(1)).
Restitution orders may include payment of pecuniary damages
to the victim and payment of criminal fines, penalties, and
surcharges to the clerk of court. Iowa Code §§
910.1(4), .2(1); Hagen, 840 N.W.2d at 149. Section
910.1 limits restitution for the victim's pecuniary
damages to those recoverable in a civil action and
unreimbursed by insurance:
"Pecuniary damages" means all damages to
the extent not paid by an insurer, which a victim could
recover against the offender in a civil action arising out of
the same facts or event, except punitive damages and
damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of
consortium. Without limitation, "pecuniary
damages" includes damages for wrongful death and
expenses incurred for psychiatric or psychological services
or counseling or ...