Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 19-0089

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.

County:
Union

Resister

State of Iowa

Applicant

Joseph Scott Waigand

Attorneys for Resister

Katie Krickbaum

Attorneys for Applicant

Theresa R. Wilson

Supreme Court

Oral Argument Schedule

Non-Oral

Dec 15, 2020 9:00 AM

Briefs

Supreme Court Opinion

Opinion Number:
19-0089
Date Published:
Jan 22, 2021

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
19-0089
Date Published:
Aug 05, 2020
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.

View archived opinions from prior to November 2017

© 2021 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.