Summary
In Yates v. State, No. 03-1268, 2005 WL 425458, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2005), Yates appealed the denial of his request for a restitution hearing.
Summary of this case from Yates v. StateOpinion
No. 5-064 / 03-1268
Filed February 24, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Gary Wenell, Judge.
Duane Yates appeals the denial of his request for a restitution hearing. AFFIRMED.
Duane Yates, Anamosa, appellant pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Mullin, County Attorney, and Terry Ganzel, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Duane Yates, who was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse and ordered to pay restitution, appeals the denial of his request for a restitution hearing. On appeal, he maintains: (1) his court-appointed attorney failed to "properly notify the court on his estimated fees"; (2) he did not receive proper notice of the restitution plan and thus was denied due process; (3) the Iowa Department of Corrections wrongfully withheld his funds; (4) his attorney inflated his billing; and (5) he should be appointed counsel to represent him in this restitution matter.
We note that Yates' first and fourth claims were not raised in his request for the restitution hearing. This failure waives these claims on appeal. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 60 (Iowa 2002).
We review this matter for the correction of errors at law. State v. Watts, 587 N.W.2d 750, 751 (Iowa 1998). After a careful review of the record on appeal, we find no error in the district court's refusal to grant Yates' request for a restitution hearing. Iowa Code section 910.7 (2003) provides the court shall grant a hearing "if on the face of the petition it appears that a hearing is warranted." Here, the court properly determined the claims asserted in the request did not warrant further hearing. We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to hold a restitution hearing.