Iowa Supreme Court to decide whether the state can charge for court-appointed defense in dismissed cases

DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case to determine whether state courts can bill low-income Iowans for the cost of their court-appointed defense attorney when criminal charges against the person have been dismissed.

The challenge is centered on a case in which an Iowa man, Ronald Pagliai, faced four separate criminal charges: three for shoplifting from Kohl's, Hy-Vee and Price Chopper, and another for resisting arrest. The cases were combined in 2024 and Pagliai pleaded guilty to the Hy-Vee and Kohl's charges. A district court eventually dismissed the resisting arrest and Price Chopper charges.

Pagliai was sentenced to serve 41 days and was ordered by the court to pay victim restitution and the full cost of the court-appointed defense fees for all charges since he agreed to do so as part of his plea deal.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, the Fines and Fees Justice Center, and Public Justice are using Pagliai’s case to challenge how the state collects defense fees in dismissed cases and are asking the court to reverse Pagliai’s defense fees for his two dismissed charges.

ACLU of Iowa cooperating attorney Alex Kornya said this process poses an issue for many low-income Iowans with dismissed charges, like Pagliai, who cannot afford an attorney. He said these fees further saddle them with debt and makes it more difficult for them to move forward past their legal challenges.

“There are thousands of Iowans across the state who have judgments against them that they cannot pay, that limit their rights to expunge cases, to be able to get basic housing and employment, all because of debts for attorneys that the court already determined they did not have the ability to pay,” Kornya told reporters outside of the Iowa Supreme Court building after oral arguments.

The ACLU of Iowa is highlighting an investigation by The Marshall Project, which shows Iowa imposes some of the highest court-appointed defense fees in the country. Kornya said that since many Iowans who owe these fees are typically low-income, the collection rate for court-appointed defense in dismissed cases is extremely low.

In 2015, the collection rate was 3.2 percent, compared to the 2.1 percent collection rate in 2021, the ACLU of Iowa stated in its brief to the court.

This is the second time the issue of court-appointed defense fees in dismissed cases has come before the Iowa Supreme Court.

In 2020, Lori Mathes was charged with felony drug possession and wanted to fight the charge but couldn’t afford her own lawyer.

Mathes ended up applying for a court-appointed lawyer and agreed to pay all legal defense costs. A judge dropped the charges two years later if Mathes agreed to pay all fees. Mathes was told the defense fees would cost $500, but they ended up being $3,000.

The Iowa Supreme Court ended up ruling 3-3, with Justice Matthew McDermott recusing himself. This allowed the court-appointed defense charges to remain in place, but they were later struck after further litigation.

The ACLU is also arguing that no Iowa statute permits the court to collect these fees in dismissed cases, making the practice unconstitutional.

State statutes allow courts to order repayment of fees, but do not explicitly allow them to order repayment when cases are dismissed.

“Our hope is that the state of Iowa will move away from the practice of assessing debts against people, largely low-income people who cannot afford an attorney,” Kornya said. “That's in cases where they were not found guilty, and where, in fact, there's never, ever been a finding of guilt."

Iowa Assistant Attorney General David Banta argued on behalf of the state on Wednesday. He said that while the state agrees that the district court lacked statutory authority to order Pagliai to pay costs for dismissed charges, Pagliai agreed to pay for his defense fees in all four cases as part of his plea bargain and waived his ability to go back and challenge these fees, which did not violate his rights.

“The order requiring Pagliai to pay costs for dismissed charges did not violate his rights to due process or to assistance of counsel,” the state’s appellee brief states. “Because the order for Pagliai to pay costs for dismissed charges was not a sentence, it is not an illegal sentence requiring correction.”

The decision likely won’t be delivered for months as the court typically takes that long to decide cases.