1. At any time, upon a finding by a psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level psychologist
that there is a substantial probability that the defendant has acquired the ability to appreciate
the charge, understand the proceedings, and effectively assist in the defendant’s defense,
the psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level psychologist evaluating the progress of the
defendant’s outpatient treatment or the director of the inpatient facility shall immediately
notify the court. After receiving notice the court shall proceed as provided in subsection 4.
2. At any time, a treating psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level psychologist may notify
the court that the defendant receiving outpatient treatment will require inpatient services to
continue benefiting from treatment or that it is appropriate for a defendant receiving inpatient
treatment services to receive outpatient treatment services. Upon receiving notification, the
court shall proceed as provided under subsection 4.
3. At any time upon a finding by an evaluating psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level
psychologist that there is no substantial probability that the defendant will be restored to
competency in a reasonable amount of time, the psychiatrist or licensed doctorate-level
psychologist evaluating the defendant’s outpatient treatment or the director of the inpatient
facility shall immediately notify the court. Upon receiving notification, the court shall
proceed as provided under subsection 4.
4. Upon receiving a notification under this section, the court shall schedule a hearing to
be held within fourteen days. The court shall also issue an order to transport the defendant
to the hearing if the defendant is in custody or is being held in an inpatient facility. The
defendant shall be transported by the sheriff of the county where the court’s motion or the
application pursuant to section 812.3 was filed.
5. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s competency
has been restored, the court shall terminate the placement pursuant to section 812.6, and
reinstate the criminal proceedings against the defendant, and may order continued treatment
to maintain the competency of the defendant.
6. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant remains
incompetent to stand trial but is making progress in regaining competency, the court shall
continue the placement ordered pursuant to section 812.6.
7. The court may change the placement of a defendant and the placement may be more
restrictive if necessary for the continued progress of the defendant’s treatment as shown by
clear and convincing evidence.
\n
Tue Dec 09 21:53:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 812 (23, 1)
§812.8, CONFINEMENT OF PERSONS FOUND INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL 4\n\n 8. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there is no substantial
probability the defendant’s competency will be restored in a reasonable amount of time, the
court shall terminate the commitment under section 812.6 in accordance with the provisions
of section 812.9.
2004 Acts, ch 1084, §10; 2023 Acts, ch 140, §13
Referred to in §812.9
\n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal, 930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019).
“§ 812.8(5). Notably, Veal cites nothing from the trial itself that might have suggested he was not competent to stand trial.”
State of Iowa v. Kenneth L. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 319 (Iowa 2019).
“Based on their objective testing and personal observations, they found Veal would be able to work with his counsel.”
State of Iowa v. Lukouxs Alan Brown (Iowa 2025).
· cites it 34× “See Iowa Code § 812.8 (4) (2021). Instead, the district court allowed the State more time to obtain a separate psychiatric evaluation.”
State of Iowa v. Scott Dwayne Chatman (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 12× “See Iowa Code § 812.8 (1). In reviewing the restoration decision, we begin with the presumptions and burdens under section 812.”
Trent Allen Williams v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “6 an order finding Williams’s competency was restored under section 812.8(5). The stay was lifted and the criminal proceedings reinstated.”
Paul Henry Cannon v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2019).
“§ 812.8(5). A defendant may be able to set aside a guilty plea by showing it was not “given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” and with a factual basis.”
— Iowa Code § 812.8(3) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Lukouxs Alan Brown (Iowa 2025).
“See Iowa Code § 812.8 (4) (2021). Instead, the district court allowed the State more time to obtain a separate psychiatric evaluation.”
— Iowa Code § 812.8(4) — 2 cases
State of Iowa v. Lukouxs Alan Brown (Iowa 2025).
“See Iowa Code § 812.8 (4) (2021). Instead, the district court allowed the State more time to obtain a separate psychiatric evaluation.”
State of Iowa v. Scott Dwayne Chatman (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).
“See Iowa Code § 812.8 (1). In reviewing the restoration decision, we begin with the presumptions and burdens under section 812.”
— Iowa Code § 812.8(5) — 6 cases
State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal, 930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019).
“§ 812.8(5). Notably, Veal cites nothing from the trial itself that might have suggested he was not competent to stand trial.”
State of Iowa v. Kenneth L. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 319 (Iowa 2019).
“Based on their objective testing and personal observations, they found Veal would be able to work with his counsel.”
State of Iowa v. Scott Dwayne Chatman (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).
“See Iowa Code § 812.8 (1). In reviewing the restoration decision, we begin with the presumptions and burdens under section 812.”
Trent Allen Williams v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
“6 an order finding Williams’s competency was restored under section 812.8(5). The stay was lifted and the criminal proceedings reinstated.”
Paul Henry Cannon v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2019).
“§ 812.8(5). A defendant may be able to set aside a guilty plea by showing it was not “given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently” and with a factual basis.”
— Iowa Code § 812.8(6) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Lukouxs Alan Brown (Iowa 2025).
“See Iowa Code § 812.8 (4) (2021). Instead, the district court allowed the State more time to obtain a separate psychiatric evaluation.”
— Iowa Code § 812.8(8) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Lukouxs Alan Brown (Iowa 2025).
“See Iowa Code § 812.8 (4) (2021). Instead, the district court allowed the State more time to obtain a separate psychiatric evaluation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.