Case Explained:This article breaks down the legal background, charges, and implications of Case Explained: Iowa Supreme Court rules billing defendant for dismissed case illegal – Legal Perspective
The Iowa Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 docket is filled with key cases
Iowa’s top court has a busy schedule as it launches into a new term this fall, delving into cases involving subjects including bullying and TikTok.
- The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot be billed for legal fees in cases that are dismissed.
- The 5-2 decision reversed a plea deal for a Polk County man who was charged nearly $500 for two dismissed cases.
- Prosecutors will need to adjust how they structure plea deals, though some suggest legislators could change the law.
If you can’t do the time or pay the fine, don’t do the crime, as the saying goes. But many Iowans have long had to pay even in cases where they faced no conviction.
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday, Jan. 9, that a Polk County man was improperly billed hundreds of dollars for his state-funded legal defense in two cases for which he was not convicted. Ronald Pagliai, who was charged with repeated shoplifting and with resisting arrest in four separate cases, took a deal in which he pleaded and was sentenced in two theft cases, while the remaining theft case and the resisting arrest case were dismissed. Among other provisions, the deal required Pagliai to pay nearly $500 in legal fees from the two dismissed cases.
In his appeal, supported by amicus filings by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Pagliai argued that billing defendants for dismissed cases violates Iowa’s statutes and constitution. In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court found such plea deals are not permitted by Iowa law but declined to address related constitutional questions.
“Where, as here, no statute authorizes a district court to assess costs in a dismissed criminal case, the dismissal order is (beyond the court’s authority) and invalid,” Justice Christopher McDonald wrote for the majority.
The Supreme Court entirely reversed Pagliai’s plea deal, including convictions and sentences, leaving prosecutors to decide whether to offer the same deal without the court fees or restart bargaining from scratch.
Friday’s ruling opens the door for others who took similar deals to also challenge them in court, although it’s unclear how many will do so at the cost of possibly losing favorable plea agreements. And it will require prosecutors going forward to rethink how plea deals and cases are structured.
Attorney Alex Kornya, who worked with the ACLU on the case, said in a news conference afterward that it’s “fundamentally unfair” for any indigent defendants to be charged for the cost of their own defense.
“It’s even worse when the state charges someone for these costs when the charges are ultimately dismissed, which Iowa is in the minority of states in the country that allows this practice,” he said. “Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”
When fees can and can’t be charged
Prior Supreme Court cases have held that defendants can be required to pay fees for dismissed charges in cases where other charges result in conviction. Pagliai’s situation is different in that it involved four separate cases, with separate court numbers, two of which resulted in no convictions at all.
The issue has come before the Supreme Court once before, in a 2020 case that resulted in a 3-3 deadlock. In Pagliai’s case, McDonald, wrote, Iowa law specifically allows judges to assess fees only in cases where the defendant is convicted or acquitted. A previous version of the law, which also permitted fees in dismissed cases, was amended in 2012.
Joining McDonald in his ruling were Justices Edward Mansfield, Dana Oxley and David May. Justice Matthew McDermott concurred, but went a step farther, writing that he believes such fees are unconstitutional. Justice Thomas Waterman, joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen, dissented, writing that such pleas “have been in widespread use throughout Iowa for many years” and that, by accepting the plea agreement, Pagliai waived any objection to its fee provisions.
“Pagliai got what he bargained for: the dismissal of two out of four charges in exchange for his payment of costs on those charges,” Waterman wrote.
What will this mean in other cases?
Ian McConeghey, executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association, said in a statement that prosecutors will adjust their plea deals but suggested legislators could change the law to reauthorize fee orders in dismissed cases.
“An agreed dismissal at the defendant’s cost has long been a staple of the practice of criminal law in this state,” he said. “While we are disappointed with the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling that defendants cannot agree to pay court costs in dismissed cases, we respect the ruling and will do our best to see that it is strictly followed.”
Waterman also cited warnings from the state’s attorneys that removing the ability to charge costs for dismissed cases is a critical tool to help prosecutors quickly and fairly address infractions, especially low-level ones.
Kornya said Friday he believes those worries are overstated.
“This is a type of debt that is only paid by indigent criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for counsel in the first place,” he said, noting that prosecutors have plenty of practice bargaining with defendants who can afford lawyers.
“There was some argument … about how victims in many cases wanted to just have something from the defendant, even if the case was to be dismissed, and it’s harder for me to see how a victim in a crime would feel at all mollified that (a defendant) had to pay the state back for the cost of defense,” he said, adding, “It’s hard to see how that’s restorative or really what that adds at all to the bargaining process.”
Kornya also noted that, unsurprisingly, people who can’t afford lawyers up front are often unable to pay fees afterward. By one count, he said, the collection rate for those fees was about 2%.
Friday’s decisions doesn’t answer all questions about court fees for dismissed, cases, Kornya said. In particular, it offers little relief for what he said are thousands of defendants who collectively owe millions in court fees for dismissed cases, and leaves unresolved whether such fees also violate the Iowa Constitution.
Still, he said, the ruling offers “some much needed clarity and much hope for the future.”
William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.