State of Iowa v. Clarence Ray Delmott

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 25-0025
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0025 Filed December 17, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CLARENCE RAY DELMOTT, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.

A criminal defendant appeals, challenging the calculation of pecuniary

damages. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and

Langholz, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

As part of a global plea agreement, Clarence Delmott pled guilty to

possession of a methamphetamine—third or subsequent offense, a class “D”

felony in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2024), and burglary in the third

degree of a motor vehicle, an aggravated misdemeanor in violation of

section 713.6A. He appeals, challenging only the amount of pecuniary damages

awarded to the victim of the burglary.

Delmott burglarized the victim’s vehicle by breaking her window and

stealing a purse containing her wallet, store and credit cards, and cash. In her

victim impact statement,1 which was both received by the court and incorporated

into the pre-sentence investigation report, the victim reported a loss of

approximately $4800—the purse valued at “about” $300; store cards worth $1800;

gift cards worth $1000; “about” $1200 cash; and $500 to repair the vehicle and

remove broken glass. At sentencing, the court ordered pecuniary damages, which

the court understood “to be in the amount of $4900 in this case.” The court

repeated that $4900 figure in the written judgment.

Delmott did not contest the amount of restitution in any way at the district

court. But on appeal, he now claims the pecuniary damages amount is too high,

1 The filed copy of the victim impact statement does not include what appear to be

two cell-phone photos attached by the victim. We do not know if they were traditional photographs or perhaps cell-phone photos of documents like a receipt or invoice. We remind county attorneys that use online forms (like Polk County) to ensure all of the information and documents victims provide supporting pecuniary damages are actually filed with the court. And we express no opinion on whether merely filing an online form complies with the State’s obligation to furnish a “statement of pecuniary damages” under Iowa Code section 910.3(1). 3

relying on the minutes of testimony and the $100 discrepancy between the victim

impact statement and the figure used by the court.

We generally review challenges to restitution orders for legal error. See

State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 2001). “When reviewing the

restitution order, we determine whether the court’s findings lack substantial

evidentiary support, or whether the court has not properly applied the law.” Id. We

afford the district court “broad discretion in determining the amount of restitution

when the record contains proof of a reasonable basis from which the amount may

be inferred.” State v. Shears, 920 N.W.2d 527, 530 (Iowa 2018).

Although some restitution challenges may be raised for the first time on

appeal, we conclude this one may not. In our published decision State v. Wagner,

we held that a criminal defendant failed to preserve error when he challenged a

pecuniary damages award for the first time on appeal because it was not offset by

insurance recovery. 484 N.W.2d 212, 217 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). We think

Wagner’s logic controls here and bars review of any unpreserved error. And even

if Wagner was not on the books, the General Assembly’s 2021 amendments to

chapter 910 would also bar review, as the legislature has deprived us of authority

to review restitution claims when the offender has not “obtained a ruling from the

district court prior to the issue being raised in the appellate courts.” Iowa Code

§ 910.7(4); see State v. Kountkofsky, No. 22-1401, 2024 WL 702240, at *3 (Iowa

Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2024) (applying this provision to pecuniary damages). We also

think requiring error preservation here makes sense. If Delmott had challenged

restitution below, we would likely see a clear explanation for the $100 discrepancy.

But we don’t have such a record. And the $100 discrepancy is not such a 4

departure from the range of evidence that Delmott can show on appeal the district

court abused its “broad discretion” or set an amount outside the reasonable range

of evidence. E.g., Shears, 920 N.W.2d at 530. So even if error preservation was

not required, this scarce record would not permit us to reverse.

To the extent any error is properly before us, it is Delmott’s claim that the

district court abused its discretion by using the restitution figures provided by the

victim impact statement as compared to lower figures included in the minutes of

testimony. We are not persuaded. Minutes of testimony are statements of

expected evidence, typically prepared from police reports and other documents

containing second-hand information from crime victims and witnesses. It is

unsurprising that more detailed information about financial loss is available when

a victim has been able to assess the harm and is not dealing with the immediate

aftermath of a crime. It is not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rely on

a victim impact statement when determining pecuniary damages—particularly

where, as here, the defendant does not contest the amount below.

We last must determine how to dispose of this appeal. In Wagner we

affirmed the district court. 484 N.W.2d at 217. But Wagner pre-dated our modern

“good cause” scheme in Iowa Code section 814.6 and involved multiple issues.

More recently, “[b]oth the supreme court and our court have consistently . . . held

there generally is not ‘good cause’ to review unpreserved errors.” State v.

Schroeder, No. 24-1547, 2025 WL 1089810, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2025).

Because we reject Delmott’s claims on the merits to the extent they are before us,

and to be consistent with Wagner, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.