State v. Weston

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentencing procedure but vacated the portion of Defendant's sentence regarding restitution, holding that remand was necessary for the district court to impose restitution consistent with this Court's decision in State v. Albright, __ N.W.2d __ (Iowa 2019).

Defendant was convicted of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's sentence. The Supreme Court granted further review and let the court of appeals decision stand as this Court's final decision regarding the issue of whether the district court gave Defendant his right of allocution. As to Defendant's argument that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution without first determining his reasonable ability to pay, the Supreme Court held that Defendant's sentence regarding restitution should be vacated and the case remanded for the district court to impose restitution consistent with Albright.

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 17–1838 Filed April 26, 2019 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. JONATHAN SHANE WESTON, Appellant. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Randy S. DeGeest, Judge. A defendant appeals the sentence imposed following his domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury conviction. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND CASE REMANDED. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender (until withdrawal), and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine M. Krickbaum, Assistant Attorney General, and Susan C. Daniels, County Attorney, for appellee. 2 PER CURIAM. Jonathan Weston appeals following his conviction for domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2A(2)(b) (2017). His challenges are to the sentencing procedure and the sentence imposed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed Weston’s sentence. Weston asked for further review, which we granted. On further review, we choose to let the court of appeals decision stand as our final decision regarding the issue of whether the district court gave Weston his right of allocution. See State v. Baker, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2019) (“On further review, we have the discretion to review all or some of the issues raised on appeal or in the application for further review.” (quoting State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012))). Therefore, we affirm Weston’s sentencing procedure. As to Weston’s argument that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution without first determining his reasonable ability to pay, we find his sentence regarding restitution should be vacated. In State v. Albright, ___ N.W.2d ____ (Iowa 2019), filed after the court of appeals decision in this case, we set forth the procedure to follow when determining the restitution obligation of a defendant. There we held that certain items of restitution are subject to a reasonable-ability-to-pay determination. Id. at ____; see also Iowa Code § 910.2(1). We also clarified that a plan of restitution is not complete until the sentencing court issues the final restitution order. Albright, ___ N.W.2d at ___. Finally, we emphasized that a final restitution order must take into account the offender’s reasonable ability to pay certain items of restitution. Id. 3 Here, the district court did not have the benefit of the procedures outlined in Albright when it entered its order regarding restitution. Accordingly, we must vacate that part of the sentencing order regarding restitution and remand the case back to the district court to impose restitution consistent with our decision in Albright. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND CASE REMANDED. All justices concur except McDonald, J., who takes no part. This opinion shall not be published.

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.