STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-459 / 06-0371
Filed July 25, 2007
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Stephen C.
Gerard, District Associate Judge.
The State Public Defender, on certiorari review, claims the court
erroneously ordered it to pay attorney fees in conjunction with a criminal case.
WRIT SUSTAINED.
Thomas G. Becker, State Public Defender and Mark C. Smith, First
Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
Janet Lyness, Johnson County Attorney, and Jeffrey Fields, Iowa City, for
appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C. J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
Attorney Jeffrey Fields filed a claim with the State Public Defender seeking
payment of attorney fees for representing a defendant in a criminal case. The
Public Defender denied the claim specifically citing Fields’s failure to file the
claim within forty-five days of the disposition of the case, as provided for in Iowa
Code section 815.10A(2) (2005). Fields responded by filing with the district court
a Motion for Fee Review Hearing in which he claimed the Public Defender’s
denial did “not adequately notify [him] of grounds for refusing to pay” the claim.
Following a hearing, the district court, without addressing the untimeliness of
Fields’s claim, found that his fee claim was “fair and reasonable” and ordered
that the Public Defender pay such claim.
In a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), the Public
Defender urged the court to reconsider, noting the court’s failure to “identify any
constitutional, statutory, or other basis for not affirming” the denial. Despite the
fact that Fields never argued the constitutional infirmity of section 815.10A(2) and
without any citation to authority, the court determined the forty-five day statute of
limitations is “arbitrary and unreasonable and denies attorney Fields equal
protection under the law [because] other persons who provide goods or services
to the State of Iowa are not subject to such an arbitrary period of time . . . .” This
case is now before us pursuant to the Public Defender’s petition for writ of
certiorari.
Upon our review for correction of errors at law, see Fisher v. Chickasaw
County, 553 N.W.2d 331, 332 (Iowa 1996), we sustain the writ.
First, it is
undisputed that Fields did not timely file his fee claim, and therefore was not
3
statutorily entitled to payment.
See Iowa Code §§ 13B.4(c)(2)(a) (Public
Defender may deny untimely fee claims); 13B.4(4)(d)(5) (Public Defender’s
denial of fee claim shall be affirmed unless it conflicts with rule or law);
815.10A(2) (forty-five day claim period). Second, it was improper for the court to
advance attorney Fields’s case by sua sponte declaring the provision invalid on
constitutional grounds. See State v. Glanton, 231 N.W.2d 31, 35 (Iowa 1975)
(stating the judge should not assume the role of a partisan or advocate).
Finally, even if the constitutional argument had been properly before the
court such that the Public Defender would have been allowed the opportunity to
respond, we would conclude section 815.10A(2) did not violate Fields’s equal
protection rights. Even assuming Fields, as a court-appointed attorney, has been
treated differently than other similarly situated persons, there is no fundamental
right or protected class involved. Kuta v. Newberg, 600 N.W.2d 280, 288 (Iowa
1999). Thus, we must simply determine whether it passes constitutional muster
under a rational basis review. See Midwest Check Cashing, Inc. v. Richey, 728
N.W.2d 396, 404 (Iowa 2007). This requires only that the law “be rationally
related to a legitimate state interest.” State v. Simmons, 714 N.W.2d 264, 277
(Iowa 2006). We conclude the legislature could have reasonably determined a
forty-five day time frame was appropriate, considering that attorney fees are
ultimately recoverable from the criminal defendant. Determining the extent of
that obligation in a timely fashion and thereby denying untimely fee claims does
not render Iowa Code section 815.10A(2) unconstitutional on equal protection
grounds. We therefore sustain the writ.
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.
