IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 17–1727
Filed April 26, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
RONALD SKYLER STEENHOEK,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Timothy J.
Finn, Judge.
A defendant appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction
for second-degree theft. 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
Brenda J. Gohr, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katherine M. Krickbaum,
Assistant Attorney General, and Daniel Kolacia, County Attorney, for
appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Steenhoek appeals his sentence for theft in the second
degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1 and 714.2(2) (2017).
Steenhoek argues the district court erred by assessing financial
obligations to him without first making a determination of his reasonable
ability to pay and abused its discretion when it sentenced him to five years’
imprisonment.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals
affirmed Steenhoek’s sentence. Crawford 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 district court’s decision
sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. 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 that part of his sentence.
As to Steenhoek’s argument that the district court erred in ordering
him to pay restitution in the form of appellate attorney fees without first
determining his reasonable ability to pay those fees, we find the restitution
part of his sentence 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
3
order must take into account the offender’s reasonable ability to pay
certain items of restitution. Id.
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.