Case Title: State v. Perry

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88-KD-2239

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 
 
No. 18–0351 
 
Filed April 26, 2019 
 
 
STATE OF IOWA, 
 
 
Appellee, 
 
vs. 
 
KATHY JO PERRY, 
 
 
Appellant. 
 
 
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. 
 
 
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John C. 
Nelson, District Associate Judge. 
 
 
A defendant appeals the sentence imposed following her conviction 
for driving while her license was barred.  DECISION OF COURT OF 
APPEALS VACATED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND CASE 
REMANDED. 
 
 
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender (until withdrawal), and 
Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. 
 
 
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant 
Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Jacklyn M. Fox, 
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. 
 
 
 
2 
 
PER CURIAM.  
Kathy Jo Perry appeals the sentencing order following her guilty plea 
to driving while her license was barred.  She contends the district court 
erred by ordering her to pay restitution for attorney fees and correctional 
costs without determining the amounts of those obligations.  The 
sentencing order declared Perry was reasonably able to pay attorney fees 
but was silent about her ability to pay other court costs. 
We transferred the case to the court of appeals.  The court of appeals 
vacated that part of the sentence dealing with restitution and remanded 
the case for entry of a corrected sentencing order.  Perry asked for further 
review, which we granted. 
As to Perry’s argument that the district court erred in ordering her 
to pay restitution in the form of attorney fees and other costs, we find the 
restitution part of her sentence 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) (2019).  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. 
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 
 
3 
 
restitution and remand the case back to the district court to impose 
restitution consistent with our decision in Albright. 
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; SENTENCE 
VACATED IN PART AND CASE REMANDED. 
 
All justices concur except McDonald, J., who takes no part. 
 
This opinion shall not be published.