STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTHONY LAMONT JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-136 / 06-0468
Filed April 25, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ANTHONY LAMONT JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, David E.
Schoenthaler, Judge.
Anthony Johnson appeals from the entry of a district court order on
restitution. AFFIRMED.
Anthony Lamont Johnson, Anamosa, Pro Se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney
General, and William E. Davis, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
In 1989, a jury convicted Anthony Johnson of one count of first-degree
burglary, one count of second-degree sexual abuse, and two counts of firstdegree robbery. The court sentenced him to a total of seventy-five years of
imprisonment and ordered him to pay court costs and attorney fees. The court
stated:
The court also orders that the defendant make restitution to the
State of Iowa for court costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court and
for court appointed attorney’s fees as approved by the court for
$212 to the victim, Penny Schryver, and $200 to the victim, Laura
Peden . . . .
Nothing else occurred in this case until 1994, when Johnson requested a
hearing to challenge the forfeiture of funds from his prison account. Although the
record provided to this court seems incomplete, it appears that no hearing was
held on this motion despite the fact that one was originally scheduled. In a
March 5, 1998 order the court stated, “If a telephone hearing is not held within 60
days [regarding restitution], it is the ORDER of the court that the Defendant shall
not be responsible for restitution . . . .”
On July 21, 1998, the court entered a “Supplemental Order on Restitution”
in which it determined that because no hearing was held “the Defendant is not
responsible for any restitution in this matter.” It ordered that any funds withheld
from Johnson “for restitution purposes” shall be returned to his account.
In
response to Johnson’s subsequent application to show cause, the State related
that the Iowa Department of Corrections (DOC) had already returned all money
3
to Johnson that had been held by the DOC, and that any money previously held
had been remitted to the Clerk of Court for Scott County.
In June of 2005, the DOC filed a restitution plan in which it noted a
balance of $2985.69 owing for attorney fees. Then in July and September of that
year, Johnson filed motions to compel the Clerk of Court to return $714.12 that
the DOC had withheld from him. Johnson later filed a motion for an order nunc
pro tunc requesting that the funds be returned with interest.
The court
subsequently entered an order concluding the DOC had appropriately withheld
the funds for the payment of court costs and attorney fees, rather than for “victim
restitution.” Johnson appeals from this ruling, which we review for the correction
of errors at law. See State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 2001).
Johnson now argues the “district court erred by re-visiting the July 21,
1998 Supplemental Order on Restitution.” In particular, he asserts that because
in the earlier July 21, 1998 order the district court determined he was not
responsible for restitution, the court could not impose restitution for court costs
and attorney fees. We disagree. The district court, in its nunc pro tunc order,
appropriately determined that the 1998 order only referred to “victim restitution”
and not to court costs and attorney fees incurred by Johnson. Those fees and
costs were not referenced in the July 1998 supplemental order as the DOC had
yet to file a restitution plan. A careful reading of the 1989 sentencing order
makes clear that the restitution ordered to be paid at that time was for the court
costs and attorneys fees incurred by the victims. It was not until June 16, 2005
that the DOC filed a restitution plan for Johnson to repay his own attorney fees
4
and court costs. Therefore, the district court was correct in determining such
costs as were detailed in the 2005 restitution plan were still owed by Johnson.
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.
