State of Iowa
v.
Joseph Scott Waigand
Defendant appealed from a district court order requiring that he pay $988,636 in restitution in connection with his conviction of ongoing criminal conduct following a guilty plea. Defendant contended the district court: (1) erred in calculating the amount of restitution owed; (2) erred in failing to order an offset for any amounts paid on a corresponding civil judgment; and (3) entered an illegal sentence by ordering the restitution without affording defendant a right to a jury trial to resolve underlying factual issues in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. Defendant also contended his counsel was ineffective by failing to argue for equitable estoppel. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant requests further review.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Joseph Scott Waigand
Attorney for the Resister
Katie Krickbaum
Attorney for the Applicant
Theresa R. Wilson
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Dec 15, 2020 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, John D. Lloyd, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (6 pages)
Joseph Waigand appeals the order setting victim restitution. OPINION HOLDS: Finding the district court did not err in setting the amount of victim restitution and Waigand’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert a right to a jury trial or equitable estoppel, we affirm.