concluded that appellant could comply with $200 monthly restitution payments. The court further ordered that any sum remaining unpaid at the termination of appellant’s probation would be entered as a civil judgment against him. The award, accruing at a statutory three percent interest rate, will accrue approximately $4400 in interest this year. Because appellant will only pay $2400 per year, the size of the judgment will actually increase. Nevertheless, we conclude that appellant’s reasonable ability to pay restitution is not determined solely by reference to his ability to pay the award in full. Instead, a determination of reasonableness is appropriately based on a defendant’s ability to pay the requisite installments. See, e.g., Iowa v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647, 648-49 (Iowa 1987) (<HOLDING>); Iowa v. Wagner, 484 N.W.2d 212, 219-20 (Iowa
holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed holding defendant must pay restitution award of 16500 that would require defendant paying 20 percent of his prison earnings 92 years to pay holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding defendant must pay restitution award in excess of 100000 that would require defendant paying 25 percent of his monthly income 5046 years to pay holding that an award of compensation for future lost earnings or front pay is an equitable matter for the court not the jury