State of Iowa v. Larry David Baskerville ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1675
Filed May 3, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LARRY DAVID BASKERVILLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joseph M.
Moothart, District Associate Judge.
A defendant challenges the attorney fees ordered in a written judgment
entry. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Larry David Baskerville shoplifted thirty pounds of ground beef, four racks
of spare ribs, and a T-bone steak from the meat department at Hy-Vee. Having
been convicted of theft twice before, Baskerville pleaded guilty to theft in the third
degree and received a prison sentence not to exceed two years. At the
sentencing hearing, the district court informed Baskerville that his responsibility
for attorney fees would be capped at $600. But the court’s written judgment
entry ordered Baskerville to pay restitution for attorney fees in “the amount
actually submitted by counsel or $1200 whichever is less.”
On appeal, Baskerville asks us to remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc
order to reflect the oral pronouncement of a $600 cap on attorney fees. The
State agrees that when a discrepancy arises between the oral pronouncement of
sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement governs. See State
v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525, 528 (Iowa 1995). The State also agrees, ordinarily,
when the record plainly reveals a discrepancy, the proper remedy is to remand
for entry of a nunc pro tunc order. See id. at 529. But the State contends a
remand is not necessary here because Baskerville’s challenge is moot. The
State points out defense counsel certified fees in the amount of $30—far less
than the $600 cap set at the sentencing hearing. Baskerville’s counsel did not
file a reply brief to counter the State’s mootness argument.
“[A]n appeal is deemed moot if the issue becomes nonexistent or
academic and, consequently, no longer involves a justiciable controversy.” State
v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002). Courts refrain from
reviewing moot issues. Id. Defense counsel’s certification of fees well below the
3
ceiling set by the district court removes the existence of any justiciable
controversy in this case. Remanding for a nunc pro tunc order would have no
practical impact on Baskerville’s restitution bill. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal on mootness grounds.
APPEAL DISMISSED.