State of Iowa v. Nathan Ray Tesch

Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-1827

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; February 7, 2023; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nathan Ray Tesch appeals his conviction for third-degree burglary and the category “B” restitution mandated by the Iowa District Court. He challenges the conviction on three grounds: the sufficiency of the evidence, a claimed Brady violation by the State warranting a new trial, and alleged abuse of discretion by the court regarding his ability to pay restitution. 

The case originated from an incident on February 6, 2021, when a surveillance notification indicated motion at a rented storage unit. The owner, Jason, discovered missing items, including butane bottles and torch lighters, upon arriving at the unit. Officer Matthew Molina followed footprints from the storage unit to a nearby home, where Tesch was found with others and subsequently arrested based on evidence linking him to the crime scene.

Tesch was tried and convicted by jury in October 2021, receiving a five-year prison sentence. During sentencing, he requested a determination of his ability to pay restitution, but the court noted the absence of a financial affidavit. The court later ruled on January 31, 2022, setting Tesch's total restitution across multiple cases, including $3,803.32 for the burglary, amounting to a combined total of $5,209.91. The court based its decision on Tesch's submitted financial affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and annulled the writ.

Tesch was ordered by the court to pay $5,209.91 in restitution, with the court determining he has the reasonable ability to do so based on several factors: he is 42 years old, has an associate degree, and has a history of employment. Despite his current incarceration for burglary, the court found no evidence of disability that would hinder his future employment. Tesch has no dependents and has previously met his court obligations under a payment plan.

Tesch subsequently filed a second appeal, prompting the supreme court to request clarification on his appeal rights regarding the restitution order and to consider consolidating it with his earlier appeal related to his conviction and sentence. The supreme court decided to consolidate the appeals without waiting for Tesch's response, directing both parties to address the appeal rights issue in their briefs. The consolidated appeal was later transferred to a lower court.

In his appeal, Tesch raises three key issues: (A) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his burglary conviction, (B) a claim of a Brady violation by the State that would warrant a new trial, and (C) a challenge to the court’s assessment of his ability to pay restitution. The court will examine each issue, particularly focusing on whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict—specifically, whether the State proved Tesch was the individual who unlawfully entered a storage unit with intent to commit theft. Tesch argues that the evidence linking him to the crime, such as shoe prints, is inadequate due to the lack of direct correlation to his specific shoes or unique tread patterns.

Tesch is linked to the crime through multiple pieces of evidence beyond shoe prints. A security camera recorded motion at approximately 3:00 a.m., coinciding with the theft of items, including thirty-six butane bottles. The scene was not hastily ransacked, as the boxes for the bottles were neatly returned to the shelf. Tesch was seen near Madison's home, about a ten-minute walk from the storage unit, around 5:00 or 6:00 a.m., carrying a duffel bag and appearing sweaty. Officer Molina traced footprints in the snow from the storage unit to Madison’s home, arriving at noon but receiving no response. Later, when executing a search warrant at 6:00 p.m., Tesch claimed the shoes he was wearing were not his and had been given to him by Madison, despite her testimony denying this. The officers had not informed him of the burglary or the significance of the shoe prints prior to this interaction. Evidence included images of the shoe prints and Tesch’s shoes, allowing the jury to assess the tread consistency. While the State did not conclusively establish Tesch as the sole perpetrator or confirm the specific shoes matched the prints, the jury could infer guilt from Tesch's contradictory statements regarding the shoes. Such fabrications and the conduct following the crime may indicate a consciousness of guilt, supporting the conviction for third-degree burglary. Overall, substantial evidence was presented to uphold the conviction.

Tesch alleges a violation of his rights under the Brady v. Maryland ruling, claiming the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that could warrant a new trial. He raised this concern during the second day of his trial, referencing a deposition from Madison, which revealed that she had informed the county attorney’s office in February or March 2021 about a larger 24-pack box of “I Love You Rose” glass pipes. This box was associated with the alleged burglary and was found in Joey’s suitcase after an incident involving police. Tesch asserts that he was not made aware of this information until depositions took place on September 22, 2021. The district court later ruled against Tesch's motion during sentencing, stating that the State did not know about Joey's connection to the box until Madison’s deposition, and therefore, could not have suppressed evidence. For Tesch to prove a Brady violation, he must demonstrate that the prosecution suppressed evidence, that the evidence was favorable, and that it was material to his guilt. The court concluded he failed on the first prong, noting that Tesch had learned about the evidence before the trial and was able to use it in his defense, meaning it was not suppressed. Consequently, Tesch’s Brady claim was dismissed. Additionally, Tesch contests the district court's restitution order dated January 31, 2022, arguing that the court abused its discretion in assessing his ability to pay the full amount over his lifetime, although it remains to be determined if he has the right to appeal this order.

Tesch asserts his right to appeal based on his request for an ability-to-pay determination made at sentencing, arguing that the subsequent January 31 ruling should be considered part of the final judgment. He contends that a permanent restitution order, including community service and payment details, entered at sentencing is integral to the final judgment as defined in section 814.6, thus permitting a properly perfected appeal. The State counters that the January 31 order, issued over two months post-judgment, negates Tesch’s right to appeal, with section 910.3(10) stipulating that such orders can only be challenged under section 910.7. It argues that allowing the “relation back” theory would contradict this section and hinder timely judicial processes. 

Tesch further requests that if his appeal is not recognized, it be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. While the State argues against this, claiming Tesch must exhaust remedies under section 910.7, the court finds that Tesch did exhaust his remedies by receiving a reasonable-ability-to-pay determination following his section 910.7 hearing request in June 2021. Consequently, the court agrees to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grants it.

On the merits, Tesch challenges the total category “B” restitution amount, claiming the district court improperly considered his lifetime earnings ability. The review standard is abuse of discretion, with Tesch highlighting that section 910.2A does not necessitate such consideration. He also references a financial affidavit indicating he already owed $66,274 in court debt while earning only $100 monthly.

The court found that it properly considered relevant factors without relying on improper facts in Tesch's case. Although Tesch argued that the relevant statutes do not require the court to adopt a long-term perspective, he failed to provide case law or statutory authority to support this claim. Tesch carries the burden of proving that the court abused its discretion. Offenders are presumed capable of making full restitution payments for category “B” restitution, and a court's determination in this context is presumed to be a proper exercise of discretion. Additionally, there is no requirement for the court to explain its reasoning for determinations made. The court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion regarding Tesch's ability to pay the restitution. Consequently, the conviction was affirmed, the January 31, 2022 restitution order appeal was treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, and after reviewing the merits, the writ was annulled.