Opinion ID: 6353511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Form of Review.

Text: The parties and the State (as amicus) dispute the proper form of our review. The SPD argues the district court’s order was a final judgment subject to direct appeal, relying on Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(d)(7). The State argues the district court’s review of an application under section 815.1 is a preclaim determination not subject to the claim process in section 13B.4, such that the SPD’s appeal should have been brought pursuant to a writ of certiorari. See Crowell v. State Pub. Def., 845 N.W.2d 676, 682 (Iowa 2014). Amaya takes no position on the proper form of review but agrees we can, and should, decide the issues raised. Although the parties are correct that we can consider the appeal even if the SPD was not entitled to appeal as a matter of right, see Iowa R. App. P. 6.108 10 (providing that a case initiated under the wrong form of review “shall proceed as though the proper form of review had been requested”), we nonetheless answer the question as it will be a recurring issue. Parties may appeal as a matter of right only from a final judgment. Id. r. 6.102(2). In 2006, the general assembly amended Iowa Code section 13B.4(4)(d)(7), declaring: “The decision of the court following a hearing on the motion is a final judgment appealable by the state public defender or the claimant.” 2006 Iowa Acts ch. 1041, § 3 (codified at Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(d) (2006)). But what motion? Section 13B.4(4) provides a process for the SPD to review specific claims for payment of indigent defense costs, providing the parameters under which the SPD may approve, deny, or reduce the claims. Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(c). Paragraph (d) allows a claimant to file a motion with the district court for review of any claim the SPD denies or reduces. Id. § 13B.4(4)(d). The district court’s ruling on this motion is the order the general assembly declared to be a final order immediately appealable as a matter of right in section 13B.4(4)(d)(7). The decision at issue here is from a motion directly to the district court under section 815.1 seeking preapproval for state funding of litigation expenses. See id. § 815.1(1)–(2). It is not the type of decision covered by section 13B.4(4)(d)(7). Indeed, section 815.1 contemplates that once an order for expenses is granted, the defendant will then use the process identified in section 13B.4(4) to seek payment or reimbursement by submitting a claim pursuant to section 13B.4(4)(c). See id. § 815.1(7) (directing the retained attorney or claimant 11 for state-funded expenses to “submit a claim for payment in accordance with the rules of the state public defender”). The plain language of section 13B.4(4)(d)(7) does not extend to the order at issue in this appeal and is therefore not a final order. The SPD is not a party to the underlying case, although by statute it had a right to, and did, participate in the underlying hearing. A writ of certiorari is “available to all persons who may show a substantial interest in the matter challenged.” Crowell, 845 N.W.2d at 683 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hohl v. Bd. of Educ., 94 N.W.2d 787, 791 (Iowa 1959)); see also State Pub. Def. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 594 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Iowa 1999) (“It has long been established that the proper mode of review of a trial court’s allowance of fees . . . is by petition to this court for an original writ of certiorari.”). Since we have concluded the district court’s order is not a final judgment under section 13B.4, SPD was required to bring an original action by way of a petition for writ of certiorari. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.107. We treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, grant the petition, and proceed to the merits. See id. r. 6.108.