State v. Letscher
Citation | 888 N.W.2d 880 |
Decision Date | 30 December 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14-1851,14-1851 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Patrick John LETSCHER, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine M. Krickbaum (until withdrawal), then Thomas J. Ogden and Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorneys General, and Adam D. Sauer, County Attorney, for appellee.
Alan R. Ostergren, Muscatine, for amicus curiae Iowa County Attorneys Association.
In this case, we consider whether a sentence in a criminal case may include a provision for the forfeiture of a pretrial bail bond in payment of the various financial obligations imposed as a part of the sentence. We conclude a sentencing court in Iowa is not authorized to impose forfeiture of bail. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals in part and affirm it in part. We affirm the sentence of the district court in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.
On August 28, 2013, the Forest City Police Department took Patrick Letscher and another person into custody and filed a complaint accusing them of stealing a pickup truck. A magistrate set bail at $2000, cash only. Two days later, Letscher posted the bail with the clerk of court. He also signed a form entitled, "APPEARANCE BOND—WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT—AUTHORIZATION OF PLEAS OF GUILTY," ostensibly provided to him by the clerk. The form contained preprinted text with several blank lines requesting information. The blanks were completed and identified Letscher's name, the offenses charged, the date and time of the preliminary hearing, and the amount of bail. The text included two set-off paragraphs with an underlined lead-in next to each. The paragraphs provided, "(Arresting officer to check the one that applies)."
The paragraph marked "OTHER" was checked as the pertinent provision. The form then stated, "Posted by," and contained a line for the defendant's signature and address. Letscher signed his name on this line. He was released from custody.
Letscher moved for reconsideration and requested he be sentenced to probation. The motion was denied, and Letscher appealed.
On appeal, Letscher raised two claims of error. First, he claimed his request for probation was improperly denied because the district court utilized a fixed policy against granting probation to defendants with a prior criminal record. Second, Letscher claimed the district court lacked authority to order forfeiture of the bail.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals. It held the record at the sentencing hearing supported the conclusion that the district court imposed a sentence of incarceration based on the individual circumstances of the case, not a fixed policy. It further found that the authority of the district court to forfeit an appearance bond at sentencing was never at issue because the district court did not forfeit the bond. Instead, the court of appeals found the district court at sentencing effectively only directed the bond to be returned to Letscher subject to the agreed conditions. A special concurrence found Letscher never objected to the conditions of the bond during the trial court proceedings and, therefore, failed to preserve error.
Letscher sought, and we granted, further review. In doing so, we now affirm the decision of the court of appeals in part and vacate in part. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals on the issue pertaining to the denial of probation without further discussion and vacate the decision on the issue pertaining to the appearance bond. See State v. Gathercole , 877 N.W.2d 421, 427 (Iowa 2016) ( ). We affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court as modified by this decision. We strike provision 6 from the sentencing order and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on the bond.
Review of sentencing decisions is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.607; State v. Formaro , 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). "We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure." Formaro , 638 N.W.2d at 724. Absent a constitutional argument, "we review a district court's decisions related to bail for an abuse of discretion." See State v. Briggs , 666 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Iowa 2003). To the extent there is a constitutional argument, our review is de novo. See id.
We first consider whether Letscher properly raised the issue of bail on appeal from the judgment and sentence entered by the district court. The State claims Letscher was required to raise any dispute before the district court for the court to address and review it in a proceeding separate from this criminal appeal.
The State correctly observes that bail is normally a matter we address and review separate from the entry of a judgment and sentence. See Formaro , 638 N.W.2d at 727 ; State v. Costello , 489 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Iowa 1992) . In this case, however, the district court made forfeiture of the pretrial appearance bond posted by Letscher into a term of the sentencing order. As a term of sentence, Letscher was entitled to challenge it as any other term of sentence, and the challenge could properly include the authority of the court. See State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862, 872 (Iowa 2009) ( ); see also State v. Louisell , 865 N.W.2d 590, 597 (Iowa 2015) ( ). A provision of a sentence becomes part of the sentence and may be challenged on appeal. Formaro , 638 N.W.2d at 727. Our rule is that matters following the imposition of sentence are collateral and must be addressed separately. Id. ; see also State v. Alspach , 554 N.W.2d 882, 884 (Iowa 1996).
The court of appeals majority viewed the sentencing provision as an order for exoneration of the bond following a disposition of the sentence. It concluded the sentencing court, in exonerating the bond, only followed the provisions of the bond form to which Letscher had agreed and that a special concurrence noted he failed to challenge during the course of the proceedings. See Iowa Code § 811.2(7)(a )–(b ) (2015) ( ). The State asserts Letscher made forfeiture incidental and collateral to the central sentencing provisions by failing to challenge the bail conditions. See, e.g. , Iowa State Bank & Trust Co. v. Michel , 683 N.W.2d 95, 110 (Iowa 2004) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gordon
...appeals.II. Scope and Standards of ReviewGenerally, we review sentencing decisions for correction of legal error. State v. Letscher , 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016). We review constitutional questions in sentencing cases de novo. State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862, 869 (Iowa 2009).If the s......
-
State v. Chapman
...him to register as a sex offender. Ordinarily, "[r]eview of sentencing decisions is for correction of errors at law." State v. Letscher , 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016). "We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing p......
-
State v. Hess
...in the sentencing order is part of the defendant's sentence even when the item is not punitive in nature. See State v. Letscher , 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016) (stating that any "provision of a sentence becomes part of the sentence"). A bond forfeiture order is part of the defendant's sen......
-
State v. Gibson
...also People v. Taylor , 2013 IL App (2d) 110577, ¶¶ 25-27, 368 Ill.Dec. 841, 985 N.E.2d 648, 652–53 ; 847 So.2d 1268 ; State v. Letscher , 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016) ; Bankers Ins. Co. v. State , 37,080 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/11/03), 843 So.2d 641, 644, writ denied , 2003-1240 (La. 6/27/03......
-
GLIMPSES OF REPRESENTATION-REINFORCEMENT IN STATE COURTS.
...the defendant cannot afford resulted in the functional equivalent of pretrial detention and violated due process); cf Stale v. Lctscher, 888 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2016) (finding it impermissible for a court to order forfeiture of a pretrial bail bond to satisfy financial obligations imposed as a......