State of Iowa v. Jesse Ray Collins ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-0758
Filed January 21, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JESSE RAY COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney,
Judge.
Jesse Collins appeals the denial of his motion to quash his restitution plan,
alleging a violation of his due process rights. AFFIRMED.
Shawn Smith of The Smith Law Firm, PC, Ames, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
Jesse Collins appeals the denial of his motion to quash his restitution plan,
alleging a violation of his due process rights.
Collins pled guilty to a class “C” felony in May 2006. A sentencing hearing
followed in August. Collins’s sentence was initially suspended and included a
special sentence pursuant to Iowa Code section 903B.1 (2006). Collins was
ordered to pay costs, fees, and victim restitution. In 2007, Collins violated his
probation, and the suspended sentence was revoked. When Collins was
incarcerated, he received a restitution plan indicating his outstanding balance
would be repaid in payments “consist[ing] of 20 percent of all institutional account
credits.”
Collins had multiple periods of incarceration over the next several years. In
2015, Collins arrived at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center. Upon his
orientation, Collins received and signed intake paperwork including an
acknowledgement form indicating certain information was provided, including a
“Notice to Deduct Restitution.” Collins signed a pre-deprivation notice on
November 20, 2015, which stated a percentage of “monies received from all
outside sources” would be deducted. The form notifies inmates of the process to
lodge objections: “If you have objections to this procedure, you must state your
reasons in writing and provide to your counselor within five calendar days of
receiving this notice. If not returned within five calendar days, the [Iowa
Department of Corrections] will assume that you have no objections.” The bottom
of the pre-deprivation notice is a signature block for administration to complete if
an inmate objects. That portion of Collins’s form remains empty, and there is no
3
record that he made a written objection within five days, in compliance with the
objection procedures listed.
In November 2017, Collins filed in the district court a pro se motion to quash,
arguing his due process rights were violated by the restitution deduction, and for
correction of an illegal sentence. A hearing was held in March 2019. Collins
testified he pays child support in the amount of $26.00 per week and owes more
than $15,000.00 in back child support in addition to the restitution. Collins also
testified he signed the paperwork, including the pre-deprivation notice, to avoid
going to “the hole.” The district court’s order stated:
The record does not reflect any steps taken by Collins to object to
the withholdings. He did indicate that he filed an informal report; a
grievance in 2017; and contacted his ombudsman. However, he was
discharged and never heard anything about his complaints. He has
apparently now be[en] re-incarcerated for violations of his special
sentence. The record does not reflect that he ever filed a timely
objection after receipt of the “Predeprivation Notice.”
The district court denied the motion, finding the Iowa Department of Corrections
provided adequate notice of the garnishment plan and the procedure for objection.
The court stated Collins failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the
withholding was not improper.
“Ordinarily, we review a district court decision with respect to quashing . . .
for abuse of discretion.” In re 2018 Grand Jury of Dallas Cnty., 939 N.W.2d 50, 55
(Iowa 2020). “To the extent, however, [a defendant] raises a constitutional due
process challenge, our review is de novo.” State v. Love, 589 N.W.2d 49, 50 (Iowa
1998).
Our supreme court has long held “that an inmate’s money in prison
accounts is protected property under the Constitution.” Walters v. Grossheim, 525
4
N.W.2d 830, 831 (Iowa 1994) (Walters I). Thus, inmates are entitled to due
process prior to deprivation of that property interest. Id. at 831–32. Although a
pre-deprivation hearing is required, it “need not be more than an informal,
nonadverserial review of [the inmate’s] written objections to the proposed
withdrawal of funds.” Id. at 833. “To comport with due process, prison officials
must merely (1) notify prisoners of the proposed amendment to their restitution
plans including—where appropriate—assessments against ‘outside sources,’
(2) permit time for objection to the proposed amendment, and (3) consider the
objections in formulating an individualized plan for the future.” Id. A petition for a
hearing to review restitution pursuant to Iowa Code “section 910.7 must be filed
within thirty days from the entry of the challenged order” to maintain the connection
to the original criminal matter. State v. Jones, No. 12-0736, 2013 WL 5761822,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2013) (citation omitted).
Collins’s challenge to the funds withheld following his initial 2007
incarceration, prior to the 2017 motion, is untimely based on this court’s analysis
in Jones. Id. Our review of the record regarding the 2017 motion leads to the
following discussion. Collins’s 2015 incarceration was not his first. He was familiar
with the withholding process and rate due to his 2007 incarceration. When Collins
presented for intake in 2015, he signed multiple forms. The intake form shows
Collins’s acknowledgement that (1) “information has been provided or made
available” to him, (2) his signature “verified [his] review and/or receipt of the
information,” and (3) a notice to deduct restitution was included in the information
provided. The pre-deprivation notice provided notice that (1) “deductions will
include monies received from outside sources,” (2) objections must be made in
5
writing, and (3) objections must be made within five calendar days. There is no
record of any objection until the 2017 motion to quash. To the extent Collins
argues he did not understand the pre-deprivation notice, we note the form is not
written in extensive legalese or with specific terms of art.
Our review of the record reveals Collins had sufficient notice of the
restitution withholding plan and of his opportunity and the procedure to object. We
affirm the denial of Collins’s motion to quash.
AFFIRMED.