 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henry11/9/2005
Tanya Henry appeals from a restitution order entered against her by the district court. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Tanya Henry appeals from the district court's order awarding restitution to Alan Henry in the amount of $15,282.20. Because we find the majority of the restitution award sufficiently causally linked to Henry's criminal convictions for burglary in the third degree and harassment, we affirm in part but reverse only on some of the smaller awards and remand.
Background Facts and Proceedings
The defendant Tanya Henry and the victim in this case, Alan Henry, were formerly married for approximately eleven years. Tanya plead guilty on August 6, 2004, to one count of harassment from an incident on May 1, 2004, and one count of burglary in the third degree for unlawfully entering Alan's house on May 23, 2004. The district court held a restitution hearing in connection with the guilty pleas on these counts on October 15, 2004, at which time the State called Alan and Dr. Timothy Vermillion, one of Alan's treating physicians, to testify as to Alan's damages. The district court entered an order following the hearing setting Alan's victim restitution award at $15,282.20. The award was represented by the following damage items:
(1) Loss of Journeyman wages at $29.03 an hour at 40 hours per week from May 3, 2004 to August 23, 2004.
80 days x 232.24 per day (29.03 x 8 hours)= $18,579.20
(2) Cash taken from home 500.00
(3) Replacement of house and truck keys 4.00
(4) Co-payments to Dr. Dilley 140.00
(5) Co-payments to Dr. Vermillion 60.00
(6) Medication co-payments 40.00
SUBTOTAL 19,323.20
LESS MONEY RECEIVED -4,041.00
RESTITUTION $15,282.20
Tanya appeals from the district court's restitution order, asserting that the lost wages/benefits and physician and prescription co-pay damages claimed by Alan were not causally connected to her crimes because he suffered from the same medical condition previous to her actions. Tanya does not appeal the other $504.00 in restitution damages, therefore we do not address them.
I. Scope of Review
Decisions regarding restitution are reviewed for errors of law and are only reversed for abuse of discretion. State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Iowa 2004). We are bound by the district court's findings of fact so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. State v. Paxton, 674 N.W.2d 106, 108 (Iowa 2004). "Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion." State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 2001). The district court is afforded broad discretion to determine the amount of damages flowing from the criminal acts found to have been committed and may set the amount of restitution where the record contains "proof of a reasonable basis from which the amount may be inferred." State v. Watts, 587 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Iowa 1998).
II. Preservation of Error on the Restitution Order
The State contends that Tanya Henry has not preserved error on her challenge to the causal connection of damages ordered in the restitution judgment. In general, matters not raised in the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d at 167. However, preservation of error rules are relaxed in appeals from sentencing orders, State v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994), and no objection may be necessary to preserve the issue of sentencing irregularity with regard to resti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|