Opinion ID: 1942742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Infringement on Right to Counsel.

Text: Dudley claims the mandatory reimbursement required by section 815.9 chills the exercise of his constitutional right to counsel. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Iowa Const. art. I, § 10. He argues a defendant faced with the prospect of having to repay the State for the costs of court-appointed counsel may choose to decline the services of an attorney. The State contends similar claims have been rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this court. See Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974); State v. Haines, 360 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1985). In Fuller, a convicted defendant argued the repayment obligation imposed upon him by an Oregon statute chilled his exercise of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 417 U.S. at 51, 94 S.Ct. at 2123, 40 L.Ed.2d at 653. The Court rejected this claim, stating: The fact that an indigent who accepts state-appointed legal representation knows that he might someday be required to repay the costs of these services in no way affects his eligibility to obtain counsel. The Oregon statute is carefully designed to insure that only those who actually become capable of repaying the State will ever be obliged to do so. Those who remain indigent or for whom repayment would work manifest hardship are forever exempt from any obligation to repay. Id. at 53, 94 S.Ct. at 2124, 40 L.Ed.2d at 654 (emphasis added). Iowa addressed a similar claim with a similar resolution in Haines. In that case, the defendant was convicted and ordered to repay the county for the fees of his court-appointed attorney as a condition of probation. 360 N.W.2d at 792. He challenged that part of his sentence ordering repayment of the costs of his legal representation, claiming it violated the constitutional provisions guaranteeing his right to counsel. Id. at 793. Relying on Fuller, this court held the restitution statute did not infringe on the defendant's right to counsel. Id. at 794. We focused on Iowa Code chapter 910, which authorizes the inclusion of court-appointed attorney fees in a convicted defendant's restitution obligation, noting the Iowa statute, like the Oregon statute, authorized repayment of attorney fees only `to the extent that the offender is reasonably able to do so.' Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 910.2 (Supp.1983)). We further pointed out that chapter 910 provides the additional protection of making the restitution plan subject to modification when circumstances dictate, for example, if a probationer later becomes unable to meet the plan of restitution. Id. We find these cases inapposite because an acquitted defendant does not have the same safeguards afforded a convicted defendant under Iowa law. The restitution procedures and standards of chapter 910 do not apply to an acquitted defendant such as Dudley. See Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa 2000) (holding provisions of chapter 910 apply only to a criminal restitution order). Moreover, the statute governing Dudley's repayment obligation, chapter 815, contains no requirement for a preliminary determination that a defendant has the financial means to reimburse the State. Although a payment plan is limited to reasonable installments, see Iowa Code § 815.9(7), that provision does not affect the amount of the judgment. Therefore, under the statutory scheme governing the obligations of acquitted defendants, an acquitted defendant will be charged with the full expense of his legal assistance without regard to whether he will ever have the funds or means to pay the judgment. The very safeguard that sustained the constitutionality of the recoupment statutes applied to convicted defendants in Fuller and Haines is absent here. See Haines, 360 N.W.2d at 797 (It is this `reasonably able to pay' standard which allows section 910.2 to withstand constitutional attack.). We conclude chapter 815.9, as applied to acquitted defendants, infringes on their federal and state right to counsel. See Olson v. James, 603 F.2d 150, 155 (10th Cir.1979) (stating court may not constitutionally order a defendant to repay court-appointed attorney fees unless he is able to pay them or will be able to pay them in the future considering his financial resources and concluding statute that made repayment mandatory without regard to ability to pay had chilling effect on defendant's right to counsel); Fitch v. Belshaw, 581 F.Supp. 273, 277 (D.Or.1984) (holding statute that imposed repayment obligation without any procedure to determine defendant's ability to pay unconstitutionally chills an indigent defendant's exercise of Sixth Amendment right to counsel); State v. Tennin, 674 N.W.2d 403, 410-11 (Minn. 2004) (holding Minnesota mandatory recoupment statute violated defendant's state and federal right to counsel). A cost judgment may not be constitutionally imposed on a defendant unless a determination is first made that the defendant is or will be reasonably able to pay the judgment. See Hanson v. Passer, 13 F.3d 275, 279 (8th Cir.1994) (stating when court-appointed counsel is provided, it is constitutionally permissible to require the defendant to repay the expense incurred by the state in providing the representation if the defendant later becomes able to repay, so long as `[t]hose who remain indigent or for whom repayment would work manifest hardship are forever exempt from any obligation to repay' (quoting Fuller, 417 U.S. at 53, 94 S.Ct. at 2124, 40 L.Ed.2d at 654)); State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 175 P.3d 861, 880 (2008) (noting statutory requirement that repayment be ordered only when defendant had ability to pay was included in statute to satisfy constitutional requirements); State v. Ellis, 339 Mont. 14, 167 P.3d 896, 900 (2007) (upholding constitutionality of state recoupment statute because it provided that a court may not sentence a defendant to pay the costs of court-appointed counsel unless the court determines the defendant is or will be able to pay them); State v. Morgan, 173 Vt. 533, 789 A.2d 928, 931 (2001) (holding that, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, before imposing an obligation to reimburse the state, the court must make a finding that the defendant is or will be able to pay the reimbursement amount ordered). Because that determination was not made here, we reverse the judgment entered against Dudley and remand for a hearing on his reasonable ability to pay the costs of his legal assistance. See In re Attorney Fees in State v. Helsper, 297 Wis.2d 377, 724 N.W.2d 414, 418-20 (Ct.App.2006) (reversing repayment order because Wisconsin recoupment statute did not require determination of reasonable ability to pay, but allowing state to seek another order consistent with the constitutional requirement that prior to entry of order a hearing be held on the defendant's ability to pay). Although the judgment against Dudley must be reversed, we will address the other issues in this appeal that are likely to arise upon remand. We first consider the equal-protection claim preserved for our review.