STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NAPOLEON HARTSFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-804 / 04-0103
Filed November 16, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NAPOLEON HARTSFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, David E.
Schoenthaler, Judge.
Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his request to modify his
restitution obligation. AFFIRMED.
Jack E. Dusthimer, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Boesen, Assistant Attorney
General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered
by
Mahan,
P.J.,
and
Miller
and
Vaitheswaran,
JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Napoleon Hartsfield is an inmate at the Iowa State penitentiary. According
to Hartsfield, he owed a total of $22,103.26 in restitution as of February 27, 2004.
Hartsfield sought to have his obligation eliminated or, at a minimum, reduced.
The district court stated that the request “center[ed] on his alleged inability to pay
his restitution costs for court-appointed attorney fees due to his incarceration.”
Following a hearing, the court denied the request for modification. Hartsfield
appeals. 1
Hartsfield raises several challenges to the district court’s ruling. We find it
necessary to address only one: whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying his request to modify the restitution obligation. See State v. Van Hoff,
415 N.W.2d 647, 648 (Iowa 1987).
The district court first considered Hartsfield’s request to eliminate the
restitution obligation for attorney fees. The court essentially stated it had no
discretion to do so under the pertinent statute.
See Iowa Code § 815.9(3)
(2003). We agree with this conclusion. See id. (stating a person granted an
appointed attorney “shall be required to reimburse the State for the total cost of
legal assistance provided to the person”) (emphasis added).
The district court next addressed Hartsfield’s request to reduce the
obligation. Iowa Code section 910.2 imposes a restitution obligation only to the
extent an offender is reasonably able to pay. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d at 648. “A
1
On the day Hartsfield filed his notice of appeal, he also filed a motion with the
district court seeking reconsideration of its prior ruling. The notice of appeal divested the
district court of jurisdiction to consider this motion. See State v. Mallett, 677 N.W.2d
775, 776 (Iowa 2004). Therefore, we decline to consider the motion or the court’s
subsequent ruling on the motion.
3
determination of reasonableness, especially in a case of long-term incarceration,
is more appropriately based on the inmate’s ability to pay the current installments
than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due.” Id. The district court
pointed out that Hartsfield failed to furnish a current restitution payment plan,
preventing the court from making “a finding with regard to whether [Hartsfield]
can reasonably pay current restitution payment installments.”
Nevertheless,
based on Hartsfield’s testimony as well as evidence proffered by the State, the
court found that Hartsfield was receiving $7.70 per month but had the ability to
earn between $60 and $100 per month if he worked in prison.
The court
declined to reward Hartsfield “for choosing not to work while incarcerated” and
denied his request to reduce the obligation as well as his related request to repay
his obligation through community service.
The court ordered “a minimum
withholding of [one] dollar and a maximum withholding of twenty percent so that
[Hartsfield] is able to afford basic human necessities.”
We discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling. The court’s findings are
fully supported by the record. According to the State’s evidence, Hartsfield was
“job-eligible” and had “been given numerous opportunities to have a job,” but
seemed to “sabotage those efforts by becoming disruptive with staff or other
offenders.”
As in Van Hoff, the district court did not require Hartsfield to
relinquish all his prison pay, but only a small fraction. 415 N.W.2d at 649 (stating
inmate did not claim he was unable to pay twenty percent of his prison wages).
And, the pertinent statute afforded the court discretion to reject the option of
community service. See Iowa Code § 910.2.
4
We affirm the district court’s ruling denying Hartsfield’s request to modify
restitution.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
