STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. DANIEL RIVERA GONZALES, Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-098 / 08-0713
Filed March 11, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DANIEL RIVERA GONZALES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Margaret L.
Lingreen, Judge.
Criminal defense attorney appeals the district court’s denial of his attorney
fee claim as untimely filed. AFFIRMED.
Kevin E. Schoeberl of Story & Schoeberl Law Firm, Cresco, for appellant.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
On August 9, 2006, defendant Gonzales filled out a financial affidavit and
listed 14556 as the court file number.
conduct charge.
This number references a disorderly
While the body of the affidavit lists two pending charges
(possession of marijuana/disorderly conduct), the possession charge’s court file
number, 14555, is not on the application. On the bottom of the defendant’s
affidavit the court approved the application and appointed Kevin Schoeberl as
attorney.
One year later, on August 20, 2007, the defendant pled guilty to
disorderly conduct and the possession charge was dismissed.
On September 7, 2007, attorney Schoeberl filed a claim for fees with the
state public defender’s office. Schoeberl’s filing listed court number SRCR14555
and attached the appointment order listing only court number 14556.
On
October 10, 2007, the public defender’s office disallowed fees because
Schoeberl’s claim “contains a conflict in the case number. Please verify that the
correct number is on the claim form and that it matches the appointment order.”
Schoeberl was directed to resubmit his information.
Approximately five months later, on January 30, 2008, the court entered
an order stating it intended to appoint Schoeberl for both 14555/14556 and
Schoeberl resubmitted his fee claim.
On January 31, 2008, the state public
defender’s office again denied the claim stating: “You have verified the court
3
numbers in this case. However you failed to respond within 45 days of the date
of the notice of action.”1
Schoeberl appealed and, in March 2008, the district court ruled: “defense
counsel failed to resubmit necessary fee claim information in a timely manner.
The Court further finds it is without authority to allow any extension of time.”
We review Schoeberl’s appeal of the district court’s ruling for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; see Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(d)(7) (2007).
Schoeberl first argues his fee application was timely filed and the district
court erred in not recognizing the date of “final action” was the order of January
30, 2008. He admits his fee claim is governed by Iowa Code section 815.10A(2),
which provides:
Claims for compensation and reimbursement submitted by an
attorney . . . are not considered timely filed 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.
By express language, the “final ruling” statutory language Schoeberl
argues is applicable applies only to non-criminal cases. The statutory time clock
started on August 20, 2007, when sentencing for one charge and dismissal of the
other charge occurred. The statute contains no provision for a different time
frame due to the entry of additional court orders.
1
Although the notice from the public defender’s office refers to forty-five days, its brief
refers to Iowa Admin. Code r. 493-7.1 (2007), which states: “A timely claim returned to
the claimant for additional information shall continue to be deemed timely only if
resubmitted with the required information within 20 days.” On May 5, 2008, this rule was
amended to allow forty-five days for resubmission of the required information. See id.
Under either time frame, Schoeberl’s resubmission was untimely.
4
To the extent Schoeberl claims the court should have granted him an
extension due to clerk/magistrate errors, he cites no authority for this proposition
and, therefore, it is waived. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)(c). Accordingly, we
affirm.
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.
