1. At any time during the period of probation, parole, or incarceration, the offender, the
prosecuting attorney, or the office or individual who prepared the offender’s restitution plan
may petition the court on any matter related to the plan of restitution or restitution plan of
payment and the court shall grant a hearing if on the face of the petition it appears that a
hearing is warranted.
2. After a petition has been filed, the court, at any time prior to the expiration of the
offender’s sentence, provided the required notice has been given pursuant to subsection 3,
may modify the plan of restitution or the restitution plan of payment, or both, and may extend
the period of time for the completion of restitution.\n\nTue Dec 09 21:52:01 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 910 (37, 0)
§910.7, RESTITUTION 8\n\n 3. If a petition related to a plan of restitution has been filed, the offender, the prosecuting
attorney, the department of corrections if the offender is currently confined in a correctional
institution, the office or individual who prepared the offender’s restitution plan, and the victim
shall receive notice prior to any hearing under this section.
4. An appellate court shall not review or modify an offender’s plan of restitution,
restitution plan of payment, or any other issue related to an offender’s restitution under this
subsection, unless the offender has exhausted the offender’s remedies under this section and
obtained a ruling from the district court prior to the issue being raised in the appellate courts.
5. Appellate review of a district court ruling under this section shall be by writ of certiorari.
[C75, 77, §789A.8; C79, 81, §907.12; 82 Acts, ch 1162, §8]
83 Acts, ch 56, §4; 86 Acts, ch 1075, §6; 2001 Acts, ch 133, §1; 2020 Acts, ch 1074, §79, 80, 83
Referred to in §910.2A, 910.2B, 910.3
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
130
cases (
25 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case:
State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2001).
State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2001).
· cites it 34× “Where the plan of restitution is not complete at the time of appeal, what is the safe course for a defendant to follow? *46 Jam, Swartz, and Jackson provide no ready answer to this question.”
State of Iowa v. Daimonay Darice Richardson, 890 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2017).
· cites it 12× “11 In Mayberry, we took note of the flexibility afforded by Iowa Code section 910.7 in rejecting the defendant’s Eighth Amendment excessive fines challenge: “[U]nder Iowa Code section 910.”
State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 28× “3B provides no opportunity for a hearing on the amount prior to the imposition of the restitution order, which renders it unconstitutional.”
State v. Blank, 570 N.W.2d 924 (Iowa 1997).
· cites it 33× “Iowa Code § 910.7 (1983). 1 In 1986, section 910.”
State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606 (Iowa 2009).
· cites it 10× “, see also Iowa Code § 910.7 (allowing a convicted defendant to “petition the court on any matter related to the plan of restitution”).”
State of Iowa v. Charles Raymond Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2019).
· cites it 5× “Iowa Code § 910.7 . In summary, we urge courts to do everything possible to have all items of restitution before the court at the time of sentencing.”
State v. Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2010).
· cites it 12× “” Iowa Code § 910.7 (1). A petitioner seeking to challenge a restitution award outside of a criminal appeal, however, is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but is granted a hearing only if the district court determines, based on the petition, that a hearing is warranted.”
State of Iowa v. Zedekiah Douglas Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “2d at 357 , the defendants were not permitted to challenge the court’s failure to determine their reasonable ability to pay because the plan of restitution was not complete at the time the notice of appeal was filed and the remedy for a hearing under section 910.7 had not been…”
Michael Jefferson v. Iowa Dist. Court for Scott Cnty., 926 N.W.2d 519 (Iowa 2019).
· cites it 7× “10(1) together and concluded that they provided a right to court-appointed counsel when a defendant is challenging restitution "imposed as part of the original sentencing order, or supplemental orders, under Iowa Code section 910.”
State of Iowa v. Marc A. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 910.7 . This section "permits an offender who is dissatisfied with the amount of restitution required by the plan to petition the district court for a modification.”
Earnest v. State, 508 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 1993).
· cites it 8× “See Iowa Code § 910.7 . Section 910.7 provides a defendant an avenue to challenge a restitution order if the time for appeal from the original sentence has expired.”
State v. Janz, 358 N.W.2d 547 (Iowa 1984).
· cites it 8× “The State contends, however, that defendant was required first to seek relief from the incorrect restitution order by filing a petition with the sentencing court pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.7 (1983), which provides: At any time during the period of probation, parole or…”
— Iowa Code § 910.7(1) — 18 cases
State of Iowa v. Charles Raymond Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2019).
“Iowa Code § 910.7 . In summary, we urge courts to do everything possible to have all items of restitution before the court at the time of sentencing.”
— Iowa Code § 910.7(1999) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Zedekiah Douglas Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).
“2d at 357 , the defendants were not permitted to challenge the court’s failure to determine their reasonable ability to pay because the plan of restitution was not complete at the time the notice of appeal was filed and the remedy for a hearing under section 910.7 had not been…”
— Iowa Code § 910.7(2) — 8 cases
— Iowa Code § 910.7(4) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 910.7(5) — 4 cases
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.