1. A probation officer or the judicial district department of correctional services having probable cause to believe that any person released on probation has violated the conditions of probation shall proceed by arrest or summons as in the case of a parole violation.
2. The functions of the liaison officer and the board of parole shall be performed by the judge or magistrate who placed the alleged violator on probation if that judge or magistrate is available, otherwise by another judge or magistrate who would have had jurisdiction to try the original offense.
3. If the probation officer proceeds by arrest, any magistrate may receive the complaint, issue an arrest warrant, or conduct the initial appearance and probable cause hearing if it is not convenient for the judge who placed the alleged violator on probation to do so. The initial appearance, probable cause hearing, and probation revocation hearing, or any of them, may at the discretion of the court be merged into a single hearing when it appears that the alleged violator will not be prejudiced by the merger.
4. If the violation is established, the court may continue the probation or youthful offender status with or without an alteration of the conditions of probation or a youthful offender status. If the defendant is an adult or a youthful offender the court may hold the defendant in contempt of court and sentence the defendant to a jail term while continuing the probation or youthful offender status, order the defendant to be placed in a violator facility established pursuant to section 904.207 while continuing the probation or youthful offender status, extend the period of probation for up to one year as authorized in section 907.7 while continuing the probation or youthful offender status, or revoke the probation or youthful offender status and require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or any lesser sentence, and, if imposition of sentence was deferred, may impose any sentence which might originally have been imposed.
5. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if the court revokes the probation of a defendant who received a deferred judgment and imposes a fine, the court shall reduce the amount of the fine by an amount equal to the amount of the civil penalty previously assessed against the defendant pursuant to section 907.14. However, the court shall assess any required surcharge, court cost, or fee upon the total amount of the fine prior to reduction pursuant to this subsection. [S13, §5447-b; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §3805, 3806; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §247.26, 247.27; C79, 81, §908.11] 84 Acts, ch 1244, §6; 91 Acts, ch 219, §29; 97 Acts, ch 125, §10; 97 Acts, ch 126, §52; 98 Acts, ch 1197, §2, 3, 8, 13; 2000 Acts, ch 1177, §4, 5; 2007 Acts, ch 180, §12; 2010 Acts, ch 1175, §2, 4; 2011 Acts, ch 34, §156 Referred to in §232.54, 901B.1, 907.3A, 907.7\n\nTue Dec 09 21:52:04 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 908 (22, 0) \n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Anouhak Anna Keutla, 798 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2011).
· cites it 31× “On appeal and on further review, the defendant contends the district court lacked the authority under Iowa Code section 908.11 (2009) to revoke her deferred judgment and also to enter an order for contempt.”
Klouda v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Dep't of Corr. Servs., 642 N.W.2d 255 (Iowa 2002).
· cites it 18× “Iowa Code § 908.11 (4). The ALJ may conduct the probable cause and probation revocation hearings, and may reconsider a person’s sentence “if reconsideration is deemed appropriate and the person’s probation was revoked by an [ALJ] in the sixth judicial district.”
State of Iowa v. Christopher Ryan Covel, 925 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2019).
· cites it 10× “See Iowa Code § 908.11 (4). The record shows the district court put a great deal of time and thought into its decision to revoke Covel's probation.”
State v. Liddell, 672 N.W.2d 805 (Iowa 2003).
· cites it 8× “See Iowa Code §§ 908.11 (6), 907.3(1). Viewing the district court's statements in context, we reject Liddell's claim.”
State v. Link, 341 N.W.2d 738 (Iowa 1983).
· cites it 18× “The defendant argues that Iowa Code section 908.11, authorizing a court upon revocation of probation to “require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or any lesser sentence,” in effect expands the sentencing options otherwise available to the court and, in this case,…”
State v. Nail, 743 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2007).
· cites it 4× “2d at 738 , we considered the meaning of Iowa Code section 908.11. This provision stated that upon the revocation of probation, the district court was empowered to sentence the defendant to “the sentence [previously] imposed or any lesser sentence.”
State v. Darrin, 325 N.W.2d 110 (Iowa 1982).
· cites it 7× “The legislature has empowered the court with wide discretion in granting probation, subject only to the provision that the grant shall promote the rehabilitation of the defendant and the protection of the community.”
Barker v. State, 479 N.W.2d 275 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 908.11 . In November 1983, the Iowa probation officer had another telephone conversation with Barker.”
State v. Francois, 577 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 908.11 (contempt statute). The court sentenced Francois to fourteen days in the Woodbury County jail, but withheld mittimus until 9:00 a.”
Calvert v. State, 310 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 1981).
· cites it 2× “Rather it appears that Calvert was invited to participate in both stages. There was indeed an off-the-record discussion in chambers which counsel, but not Calvert, attended.”
— Iowa Code § 908.11(1) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 908.11(2) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 908.11(3) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 908.11(4) — 22 cases
State of Iowa v. Anouhak Anna Keutla, 798 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 2011).
“On appeal and on further review, the defendant contends the district court lacked the authority under Iowa Code section 908.11 (2009) to revoke her deferred judgment and also to enter an order for contempt.”
State of Iowa v. Christopher Ryan Covel, 925 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2019).
“See Iowa Code § 908.11 (4). The record shows the district court put a great deal of time and thought into its decision to revoke Covel's probation.”
— Iowa Code § 908.11(5) — 9 cases
State v. Nail, 743 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2007).
“2d at 738 , we considered the meaning of Iowa Code section 908.11. This provision stated that upon the revocation of probation, the district court was empowered to sentence the defendant to “the sentence [previously] imposed or any lesser sentence.”
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.