STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER vs. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR UNION COUNTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 119/ 05–1144
Filed January 4, 2008
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR UNION COUNTY,
Defendant.
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Union County, Peter A.
Keller, Judge.
State Public Defender challenges a district court order allowing
fees to an attorney appointed in a criminal case. WRIT SUSTAINED.
Thomas G. Becker, State Public Defender, and Mark C. Smith,
First Assistant State Public Defender, for plaintiff.
Andrew J. Knuth of Rutherford, Trewet & Knuth, Atlantic, for
defendant.
2
LARSON, Justice.
The Union County District Court appointed attorney Andrew
Knuth to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case.
Knuth
finished his representation of the defendant and filed his fee claim;
however, he filed it after the forty-five-day deadline provided by statute.
The State Public Defender, who is charged with the responsibility of
reviewing such claims, denied the claim as untimely. The district court,
nevertheless, ordered the public defender to pay the claim, and the
public defender brought this certiorari action. We sustain the writ.
I. Standard of Review.
In a certiorari case, the district court’s ruling is reviewed for
correction of errors at law.
State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 731
N.W.2d 680, 683 (Iowa 2007).
“A writ of certiorari lies where a lower board, tribunal, or
court has exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise acted
illegally . . . . ‘Illegality exists when the court’s findings lack
substantial evidentiary support, or when the court has not
properly applied the law.’ ”
Id. (quoting State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 721 N.W.2d 570, 572
(Iowa 2006)).
II. Discussion.
Compensation for court-appointed attorneys is governed by Iowa
Code chapters 13B and 815 (2005), as well as Iowa Administrative Code
chapter 493. The public defender is authorized to review all claims for
payment of indigent defense costs and may deny such a claim if, among
other things, it is not timely. Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(c)(2)(a). A claim is
untimely when it is not “submitted to the State Public Defender within
forty-five days of the sentencing, acquittal, or dismissal of a criminal case
3
or the final ruling or dismissal of any other type of case.”
Iowa Code
§ 815.10A(2).
Knuth’s client was sentenced on March 18, 2005, and Knuth filed
his fee claim on May 11, 2005—fifty-four days after sentencing.
It is
clear, and apparently undisputed, that Knuth did not comply with the
statutory timelines required for submitting a fee claim.
Despite the
failure to file a timely claim, the district court waived the statutory fortyfive-day deadline and approved the claim. The public defender argues
that the district court did not have the authority to approve a fee claim
under these conditions.
Two statutes govern fee claims in indigent-defense cases.
Iowa
Code section 815.10A(2) establishes a deadline for filing:
Claims for compensation and reimbursement submitted by
an attorney appointed after June 30, 2004, are not
considered timely unless the claim is submitted to the state
public defender within forty-five days of the sentencing,
acquittal, or dismissal of a criminal case or the final ruling
or dismissal of any other type of case.
Another statute prescribes the duties of the State Public Defender.
Under that statute,
[t]he state public defender may review any claim for payment
of indigent defense costs and may take any of the following
actions:
....
(2) Deny the claim under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) If it is not timely.
Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(c).
Iowa Code section 13B.4(4)(d) provides that
the attorney may seek review of any action or intended
action denying or reducing any claim by filing a motion with
the court with jurisdiction over the original appointment for
review.
4
However, that review is limited.
“If a claim or portion of the claim is
denied, the action of the state public defender shall be affirmed unless
the action conflicts with an administrative rule or the law.” Iowa Code
§ 13B.4(4)(d)(5).
The claimant in this case does not contend that the
action of the public defender was contrary to statute or administrative
rule.
Under Iowa Code section 13B.4(8), “[t]he state public defender
shall adopt rules, as necessary, pursuant to chapter 17A to administer
this chapter and chapter 815.”
Administrative code rule 493—12.2(6)
provides that, “[f]or cases to which the attorney is appointed after
June 30, 2004, claims that are not timely will be denied.” Nothing in any
of the statutes we have discussed or this administrative rule suggest any
exceptions to the denial rule for untimely claims, nor is there any
provision for waiving the requirement of timely filing.
Our reading of these statutes and the administrative rule applying
them leads us to conclude that the district court exceeded its authority
by ordering payment of the claim in question. We therefore sustain the
writ of certiorari. The claimant’s alternative argument, that the public
defender was estopped from denying the claim, was not raised in the
district court, and we therefore deem it waived.
WRIT SUSTAINED.
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.
