State v. Roache
Citation | 920 N.W.2d 93 |
Decision Date | 16 November 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 17-0931,17-0931 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Terran ROACHE, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
John L. Dirks of Dirks Law Firm, Ames, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney General, Jessica Reynolds, County Attorney, and Adam Kenworthy, for appellee.
In this 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.
We hold 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.
On 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 tire iron.
The 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 guilty pleas.
The 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).
The 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.
Roache 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.
At the 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.
The agreement was silent as to the amount of the fine Northland would charge Hagedon if he failed to return the study guide.
The attached presentation slide describes the study guide and states, The handout attached to the contract is a letter from Randy Grey, Lead Instructor, stating in part, No dollar amount of the fine was mentioned in the handout or slide.
Hagedon 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.
Hagedon testified he did not know what would happen if he failed to pay the fine or if the fine was omitted from the restitution award.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Davison
...contrary addressing Apprendi and the law of conspiracy.Iowa's criminal restitution statute is linked to civil tort law. State v. Roache , 920 N.W.2d 93, 100 (Iowa 2018) ; see also Iowa Code §§ 910.1(6) (allowing restitution in the amount that "a victim could recover against the offender in ......
-
Tyler v. Commonwealth
...held that § 33(b) of the Restatement (Third) applies when judging the scope of liability for criminal restitution. See State v. Roache , 920 N.W.2d 93, 101-02 (Iowa 2018) ("The scope of liability is broader for intentional torts .... [W]e now hold that the Restatement (Third) of Torts’ risk......
-
State v. Stendrup
...factual cause and scope of liability and adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts risk standard for civil tort actions." State v. Roache , 920 N.W.2d 93, 101 (Iowa 2018). The scope-of-liability standard in civil tort cases "is intended to prevent the unjustified imposition of liability by ‘......
- Bluml v. Dee Jay's Inc.