STATE OF IOWA vs. PAUL RAY ANDERSON, JR.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 06–0048
Filed May 29, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
PAUL RAY ANDERSON, JR.,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County, David L.
Christensen, Judge.
Acquitted indigent defendant appeals from orders requiring him to
reimburse the State for the costs of his court-appointed attorney.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT REVERSED; AND CASE REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas W. Andrews, Assistant
Attorney General, and Alan M. Wilson, County Attorney, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Paul Anderson, appeals from postacquittal orders
requiring him to reimburse the State for the cost of legal assistance
provided at public expense. The court of appeals held these orders and
the statute pursuant to which they were entered, Iowa Code section
815.9 (2005), did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to
counsel, the equal protection and due process guarantees of the United
States Constitution, or the debtor’s clause of the Iowa Constitution. The
court of appeals also rejected Anderson’s claim he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to
certain aspects of the court-ordered payment plan, concluding Anderson
was not entitled to counsel for postacquittal proceedings.
We granted
Anderson’s application for further review.
The State filed a criminal charge against Anderson in 2004. His
financial affidavit revealed his only income was a disability benefit of
$735 per month.
The court determined Anderson was indigent and
appointed counsel to represent him. Anderson was eventually acquitted
of the criminal charge.
Pursuant to section 815.9, the court then
ordered Anderson to reimburse the State for the total costs of his legal
assistance, and if payment was not made within a specified time, a
judgment would be entered against him.
Anderson’s counsel filed a
motion challenging the constitutionality of this statute and in the
alternative requesting a payment plan. At the hearing on this motion,
Anderson showed that he was totally and permanently disabled and his
monthly expenses exceeded his disability benefits. The court overruled
Anderson’s constitutional objections, entered judgment against him for
3
the costs of his legal assistance, and ordered him to pay $35 per month
toward payment of the judgment.
On appeal, Anderson raises the identical issues raised by the
defendant in State v. Dudley, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2009), a decision we
also file today.
Upon our consideration of these issues and for the
reasons set forth in our opinion in Dudley, we hold the court’s failure to
consider Anderson’s ability to reimburse the State for the costs of his
defense infringed on his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In addition,
we conclude Anderson’s right to equal protection was violated in two
ways:
(1) the court-ordered repayment plan deprived Anderson of the
protections of the statutes governing execution on civil judgments that
are available to other civil judgment debtors; and (2) chapter 815 limits
the restitution obligation of a convicted defendant represented by a
public defender, whereas all other indigent defendants, including
acquitted defendants such as Anderson, must pay the full cost of their
attorneys. We also conclude the district court erroneously included the
statutory court reporter fee in the sum Anderson was required to repay.
Finally, we find no due-process violation under the facts of this case.
Based on our determination that Anderson’s constitutional rights were
violated, we vacate the court of appeals decision, reverse the district
court judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; AND CASE REMANDED.
All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part.
This is not a published opinion.
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.
