State of Iowa v. Jonathan Shane Weston

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 17–1838
Filed April 26, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
JONATHAN SHANE WESTON,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Randy S.
DeGeest, Judge.
A defendant appeals the sentence imposed following his domestic
abuse assault causing bodily injury conviction. DECISION OF COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; SENTENCE
VACATED IN PART AND CASE REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender (until withdrawal), and
Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine M. Krickbaum,
Assistant Attorney General, and Susan C. Daniels, County Attorney, for
appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
Jonathan Weston appeals following his conviction for domestic
abuse assault causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code sections
708.1 and 708.2A(2)(b) (2017). His challenges are to the sentencing
procedure and the sentence imposed.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals
affirmed Weston’s sentence. Weston asked for further review, which we
granted.
On further review, we choose to let the court of appeals decision
stand as our final decision regarding the issue of whether the district court
gave Weston his right of allocution. See State v. Baker, ___ N.W.2d ___,
___ (Iowa 2019) (“On further review, we have the discretion to review all or
some of the issues raised on appeal or in the application for further
review.” (quoting State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012))).
Therefore, we affirm Weston’s sentencing procedure.
As to Weston’s argument that the district court erred in ordering
him to pay restitution without first determining his reasonable ability to
pay, we find his sentence regarding restitution should be vacated. In State
v. Albright, ___ N.W.2d ____ (Iowa 2019), filed after the court of appeals
decision in this case, we set forth the procedure to follow when determining
the restitution obligation of a defendant. There we held that certain items
of restitution are subject to a reasonable-ability-to-pay determination. Id.at ____; see also Iowa Code § 910.2(1). We also clarified that a plan of
restitution is not complete until the sentencing court issues the final
restitution order. Albright, ___ N.W.2d at ___. Finally, we emphasized that
a final restitution order must take into account the offender’s reasonable
ability to pay certain items of restitution. Id.3
Here, the district court did not have the benefit of the procedures
outlined in Albright when it entered its order regarding restitution.
Accordingly, we must vacate that part of the sentencing order regarding
restitution and remand the case back to the district court to impose
restitution consistent with our decision in Albright.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND
VACATED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND CASE
REMANDED.
All justices concur except McDonald, J., who takes no part.
This opinion shall not be published.