State of Iowa v. Chris William Kelly, Jr. ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0055
Filed February 8, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHRIS WILLIAM KELLY, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns,
Judge.
Chris Kelly Jr. appeals the district court’s partial denial of his motion to
quash a garnishment. AFFIRMED.
Fred Stiefel, Victor, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from the district court’s partial denial of a motion to quash
a garnishment. The garnishment proceeding was initiated by the Linn County
Sheriff, who claimed Chris Kelly Jr. had $400 in his possession when he turned
himself in to the Linn County jail on a matter that was an outgrowth of a criminal
sentencing order.
Kelly sought relief from garnishment, asserting the $400 was not his. He
later filed a motion to quash the garnishment, claiming the jail confiscated an
additional $33. At a hearing on the motion, Kelly acknowledged the funds were
“garnishable” but asserted that, “from a humane point of view,” the court should
allow him to use them for “hygiene” needs while jailed.
The district court determined the $400 sum in Kelly’s possession was
available for Kelly’s use and was “subject to garnishment.” The court quashed
garnishment of the remaining $33.02.
On appeal, Kelly contends Iowa Code section 627.6(14) (2018) exempts
“[t]he debtor’s interest, not to exceed one thousand dollars in the aggregate, in any
cash on hand . . . whether otherwise exempt or not under this chapter.” The State
responds that Kelly failed to preserve error. That is precisely what the court of
appeals held in State v. Stanton, No. 16-1193, 2018 WL 1182617, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. Mar. 7, 2018). We stated the defendant “did not preserve error on his claim
that he [was] entitled to an exemption under section 627.6(14).” Stanton, 2018 WL
1182617, at *3. In light of Stanton, which serves as persuasive authority, we
3
conclude Kelly did not preserve error on his claim that the $400 in funds were
exempt from execution.
AFFIRMED.