from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Monica
Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.
William Dempster III appeals the district court's
modification of his victim restitution order.
G. Thomas and Jeffrey L. Clark of Thomas & Clark, LLC,
Anamosa, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
asked to determine the effect of a prior court of appeals
opinion on a criminal restitution order.
William Dempster III pled guilty to vehicular homicide by
reckless driving. See Iowa Code § 707.6A(2)(a)
(2013). As required by law, the district court ordered victim
restitution of $150, 000. See id. § 910.3B(1).
The court approved a restitution plan of payment.
thereafter, Dempster notified the district court of two $100,
000 insurance payments to the parents of the victim-one by
his insurance company and the other by the company that
insured the owner of the vehicle. In exchange for the
payments, the parents released Dempster from all liability.
Dempster requested "that his probation agreement/payment
plan be amended to reflect that victim restitution has been
satisfied." On July 12, 2016, following a hearing, the
Iowa Code Section 910.8 provides in relevant part "that
any restitution payment by the offender to a victim shall be
set off against any judgment in favor of the victim in a
civil action arising out of the same facts or event."
See also State vs. Driscoll, 839 N.W.2d 188, 191
(Iowa 2013). Based thereon, in the Court's reading of the
Driscoll case, the Court hereby finds that offset is
proper. As Driscoll indicates, the purpose of the
statute is to coordinate civil recoveries with criminal
restitution to avoid double recovery. Id. (citing
State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2004)).
court ordered an offset of "the civil payment made to
the victim's family" and application of "any
payments made directly by the Defendant to any further court
costs or obligations he owes." The court further stated,
"If the payment made by the civil settlement satisfies
the $150, 000.00 criminal restitution payment in its
entirety, the Court deems that aspect of the Defendant's
disposition order to be satisfied in full." The State
did not appeal the July 12, 2016 order.
than a month after the order was filed, the parents of the
victim wrote a letter to the district court requesting
reconsideration of the order. They asserted the court should
not have offset the $100, 000 payment they received from the
vehicle owner's insurer against Dempster's $150, 000
restitution obligation. In response to the letter, the court
"clarifie[d]" that its prior order "relate[d]
solely to any insurance proceeds paid on behalf of . . .
Dempster from his personal liability coverage."
moved to set aside the clarifying order. The district court