State v. Van Hoff
| Decision Date | 22 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-896,94-896 |
| Citation | 528 N.W.2d 99 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Roger G. VAN HOFF, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and R. Andrew Humphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Annette L. Hitchcock, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and NEUMAN, SNELL, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ.
This is the State's appeal in a case involving prison inmate Roger G. Van Hoff's challenge to his restitution plan. See Iowa Code § 910.7 (1993). Although the district court upheld the plan with respect to deductions from Van Hoff's prison allowance, the court ruled that correction officials were without statutory authority to impose an across-the-board assessment of twenty percent against funds received by inmates from outside sources. Only the latter issue is before us on appeal.
Our decision is controlled by Walters v. Grossheim, 525 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 1994). Walters involved an inmate's claims for injunctive relief against the same newly enacted corrections policy challenged here by Van Hoff. We made the following three observations in Walters about the restitution scheme under review: (1) that Iowa Code section 904.702 specifically authorizes deductions for restitution from inmates' prison allowances; (2) that a general obligation to make restitution, applicable to prisoners and nonprisoners alike, may be inferred from the broad language of Iowa Code chapter 910 as implemented through 201 Iowa Administrative Code 20.11; and (3) that to conform with constitutional due process standards, restitution may be collected from prisoners' private sources of income only upon notice and hearing concerning a prisoner's individualized circumstances. Watters, 525 N.W.2d at 832.
Implicit in our Walters decision was our rejection of the claim advanced here by Van Hoff that only deductions from prison allowances are permitted by statute. The district court's contrary ruling on that point is incorrect. We are obliged to affirm the court's refusal to order restitution from Van Hoff's outside sources of income, however, because the assessment was not made on an individualized basis. See Walters, 525 N.W.2d at 833.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parrish v. Mallinger
...in light of two intervening decisions of the Supreme Court of Iowa, Walters v. Grossheim, 525 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 1994), and State v. Van Hoff, 528 N.W.2d 99 (Iowa 1995). On remand, the district court granted Nix and Mallinger qualified immunity on Henry's claims, and dismissed Yvonne's claims......
-
K.R., In Interest of, 94-1313
... ... In February 1992, the juvenile court was advised that A.R. had abandoned the treatment program and she had left the state with her daughter in an effort to circumvent the dispositional order. The juvenile court entered an order transferring custody of the child to the ... ...
-
State v. Brewer, 95-0441
...motions are without merit. An inmate's funds from outside sources are subject to deductions for restitution purposes. State v. Van Hoff, 528 N.W.2d 99, 100 (Iowa 1995). Brewer is incorrect in claiming his status as an indigent criminal defendant made it unconstitutional to assess the amount......