State Of Iowa Vs. Phillip Dean Mcfarland , 2006 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 123 ( 2006 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 80 / 03-2034
Filed September 22, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
PHILLIP DEAN MCFARLAND,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J. Ovrom,
Judge.
Appeal from restitution judgments. DECISION OF COURT OF
APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Christopher Kragnes, Sr., of Kragnes, Tingle & Koenig P.C.,
Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jean C. Pettinger and
William A. Hill, Assistant Attorneys General, John P. Sarcone, County
Attorney, Steve Foritano and George Karnas, Assistant County Attorneys,
for appellee.
2
LAVORATO, Chief Justice.
Phillip McFarland appeals from a district court ruling denying all of
his claims as set out in his petition challenging restitution judgments in
three cases, which were combined for hearing. We transferred the case to
the court of appeals, which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
the case for further proceedings. We granted McFarland’s application for
further review.
We conclude the court of appeals erred when it apportioned the court
reporter fee of fifteen dollars per day pursuant to Iowa Code section 625.8(2)
(2003) among the three cases, contrary to the district court’s ruling that
such fee is to be taxed as to each case. Accordingly, we vacate the court of
appeals decision and affirm the district court judgment.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
McFarland was sentenced to a fifteen-year prison sentence for
convictions in three separate criminal cases: SR 111588 (conspiracy to
commit second-degree burglary, assault causing bodily injury, and false
imprisonment), FE 111646 (second-degree burglary), and FE 111876 (two
counts of impersonating a public official and two counts of false
imprisonment). Sentencing orders in those cases required McFarland to
pay court-appointed attorney fees to the extent he was reasonably able to do
so and court costs. Because the amounts of restitution were not available,
the sentencing orders stated that supplemental orders would follow.
Supplemental orders were entered in each case detailing the amount
of attorney fees and court costs McFarland was required to pay. The clerk
of district court sent the supplemental restitution orders to the Iowa
Department of Corrections but neglected to send copies of the orders
directly to McFarland. The department then prepared plans of restitution in
each case and provided the plans to McFarland. When McFarland received
3
the plans from the department, he requested copies of the supplemental
restitution orders from the clerk of the district court. The clerk refused to
provide such copies based on the mistaken belief that the department
would provide copies of the orders to McFarland. McFarland then requested
the copies from the department for which he had to pay the department
copying charges of $3.82.
On May 7, 2003, McFarland filed a “petition to strike or modify
restitution plan” in the district court, challenging the plans on a number of
grounds. Following two hearings, the district court rejected all but one of
McFarland’s challenges. One of those rejected challenges was to the clerk’s
taxation of court reporter fees to McFarland. Iowa Code section 625.8(2)
provides that the “clerk of the district court shall tax as a court cost a fee of
fifteen dollars per day for the services of a court reporter.” McFarland
contended that section 625.8(2) authorizes only one fee to be taxed per day
and that the fifteen-dollar fee should have been apportioned among the
three cases.
McFarland appealed, raising numerous issues. We transferred the
case to the court of appeals, which affirmed the district court ruling in all
respects except one. The court concluded the clerk should have taxed only
one court reporter fee for a single hearing and that fee should have been
taxed proportionately to each case combined for that hearing. The court
reversed the district court ruling on this issue and remanded the case with
instructions that the court costs be taxed in accordance with its opinion.
The court of appeals did not address McFarland’s contention that the clerk
of court should be ordered to reimburse him $3.82 that he had to pay the
department to obtain copies of the supplemental restitution orders.
4
McFarland filed an application for further review, which we granted.
Because we conclude the court of appeals was correct with respect to
the issues upon which it affirmed, we do not address those issues. We will
restrict our discussion to the court-reporter-fee issue and the claim for
reimbursement. See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 2005)
(holding that this court on further review can review any or all of the issues
raised on appeal).
II. Court Reporter Fee.
As noted, Iowa Code section 625.8(2) provides that “[t]he clerk of the
district court shall tax as a court cost a fee of fifteen dollars per day for the
services of a court reporter.” In State v. Basinger, 721 N.W.2d 783 (Iowa
2006), we confirmed our long-standing rule that court costs are not
apportioned in criminal cases. Basinger, 721 N.W.2d at 786. In applying
section 625.8(2), we adopted the rule that costs are to be taxed “by the case,
that is, one fee for each case.” Id. In Basinger, a multidefendant trial, we
concluded that each defendant was properly taxed a court reporter fee of
fifteen dollars per day. Id. at 787.
Applying the one-fee-for-each-case rule here, we conclude, contrary to
the court of appeals decision, that the district court was correct in holding
that the clerk of district court properly taxed a court reporter fee of fifteen
dollars per day for each case. McFarland had to present evidence specific to
each case for which a court reporter was used whether the case was heard
separately or in a combined hearing. Thus, contrary to McFarland’s
contention, the clerk’s taxation of costs did not constitute double billing.
See Basinger, 721 N.W.2d at 786-87 (“The rule makes sense because each
defendant here had a case file with a separate case number and each had a
case presented to the jury for which a court reporter was used. It was
necessary for the prosecution to present evidence specific to each defendant
5
to prove the charge against each defendant. Viewed in this manner, the
rule also eliminates the defendants’ objection that the clerk here was trying
to recover multiple times for the same costs.”).
III. Claim For Reimbursement.
Although the court of appeals did not address this issue, the district
court did. The district court had it right when it declined to address the
issue whether the clerk of court would be liable to McFarland for the
copying charges because the clerk is not a party to this action.
IV. Disposition.
In sum, we conclude the court of appeals erred in apportioning the
court reporter fee among McFarland’s three cases. Accordingly, we vacate
the court of appeals decision and affirm the district court judgment.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.