Opinion ID: 1700516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Immediate Enforceability of Restitution.

Text: Ashburn argues that, pursuant to Iowa Code section 908.10 (conviction of a felon while on parole), the sentence he received in Scott County is consecutive to the sentence he received for his prior conviction in Dallas County. Ashburn maintains he is still serving time on his Dallas County sentence; therefore, the State may not begin to collect restitution from him until he begins to serve his sentence for the Scott County convictions for which restitution was ordered. The State argues that pursuant to sections 908.8 and 901.10 Ashburn is serving one continuous sentence and restitution is immediately enforceable. We do not believe it is necessary to decide whether Ashburn is serving consecutive sentences or one continuous sentence. The district court correctly found that section 910.5 neither directly, indirectly or by implication suggests that restitution can only be enforced when an offender is serving the sentence on convictions for which restitution was ordered. Ashburn cites section 910.5(1) in support of his contention that a restitution order may only be enforced when there is a causal connection between the restitution ordered and the sentence an offender is serving. Section 910.5(1) provides in pertinent part: An offender committed to a penal or correctional facility of the state, shall make restitution while placed in that facility. Upon commitment to the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections, the director or the director's designee shall prepare a restitution plan of payment or modify any existing plan of payment. The new or modified plan of payment shall reflect the offender's present circumstances concerning the offender's income, physical and mental health, education, employment, and family circumstances. The director or the director's designee may modify the plan of payment at any time to reflect the offender's present circumstances. When a statute's terms are unambiguous and its meaning plain, there is no room for second-guessing legislative intent. State v. Burgs, 479 N.W.2d 323, 324 (Iowa 1992). We believe section 910.5(1) is unambiguous. The plain language of this section provides that an offender who is incarcerated shall make restitution and directs the director of the department of corrections or the director's designee to prepare a plan of restitution or modify an existing plan reflecting the offender's present circumstances. Nothing in the language of this section or any other section in chapter 910 connects the obligation to pay restitution to the sentence being served. Therefore, we reject Ashburn's contention that restitution is not immediately enforceable.