Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, John G. Linn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            MEP Co. appeals the district court’s declaratory judgment in favor of Addison Insurance Company.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and we discern no error in the court’s conclusion.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Brook Jacobsen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Elisa Walker appeals after entering written pleas to fourth-degree theft and fourth-degree fraudulent practices, claiming she failed to understand fully the plea and its consequences.  OPINION HOLDS: Walker failed to preserve her challenge to the plea based on her alleged lack of understanding for our review.  So we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Patrick H. Tott and Jeffrey A. Neary, Judges.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J. (16 pages)

            The defendant appeals her conviction and sentence for theft by check in the second degree contending the State failed to prove (1) that she knew the checks would not be paid and (2) that she received property, services, or money from the transactions.  She also alleges the court improperly instructed the jury on aggregation.  Lastly, she challenges the district court’s ruling that a sheriff’s reimbursement claim for $28,136 in medical aid under Iowa Code section 356.7 (2018) be listed as a civil judgment against her, when she was not represented by counsel at the hearing on the claim.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence supports her conviction, and we affirm the verdict.  But on the medical aid, we remand for a hearing on the sheriff’s claim where the defendant is afforded the right to the assistance of counsel.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J. (18 pages)

            Tait Purk appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder following a bench trial.  He raises numerous claims, including many ineffective-assistance claims.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm his conviction and sentence.  And we preserve all but one of his ineffective-assistance claims for future postconviction proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON CONDITION AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (9 pages)

            Kenneth Shaw appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree robbery in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.2 (2017).  Shaw was sentenced to a twenty-five year prison sentence, with 70% mandatory incarceration.  On appeal, Shaw argues: (1) the State did not provide sufficient evidence to show Shaw committed the robbery; and (2) the jury pool was not a fair cross-section of the community in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 10 of the Iowa State Constitution.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence supports the jury’s determination that Shaw committed the robbery.  The district court correctly determined Shaw failed to meet his burden to establish a prima facie case of fair cross-section violation.  But because the parties did not have the benefit of recent refinements to Iowa law, we remand the matter to the district court to give Shaw an opportunity to develop his arguments that his constitutional right to an impartial jury was violated; if the court finds a violation occurred, it shall grant Shaw a new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.  DIRECT APPEAL AFFIRMED; WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Keith Rath appeals from the district court’s refusal to hold his former wife, Melinda Gordon, in contempt for failure to comply with property provisions of their divorce decree.  Although it refused to find Melinda in contempt, the court did find Keith in contempt for his own failure to comply with the decree.  Keith filed an appeal to the joint order.  OPINION HOLDS: Although an appeal lies from the refusal of the court to find Melinda in contempt, the proper mode of review for the finding Keith was in contempt was petition for writ of certiorari.  We treat the appeal as though Keith requested the proper form of review.  And, after a careful review of the record, briefs, and applicable law, we affirm the district court’s ruling without opinion under Iowa R. App. P. 6.1203(a) and (d).  We affirm.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Terry R. Rickers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, J.  (14 pages)

            Defendant Berlou Barnard appeals his conviction of four separate counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and one count of obstruction of justice based on error in two evidentiary rulings.  Barnard argues (1) his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when a videotaped interview with the child complaining witness was admitted over his objection; (2) the district court erred by admitting the interview over his hearsay objection; and (3) the district court erred by granting the State’s motion in limine to prevent him from introducing evidence that the child complaining witness had made false allegations of sexual abuse against another family member before. OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err by admitting the videotaped interview or by granting the State’s motion in limine.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman and Bradley J. Harris, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (9 pages)

            Michael Dawson appeals his convictions for various drug crimes, eluding, and driving while barred.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in not ruling on pro se motions that did not articulate claims with any clarity.  Sufficient evidence supports Dawson’s possession conviction.  We preserve Dawson’s ineffective-assistance claims for possible future postconviction-relief proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Alonzo Stokes appeals the district court order denying his application for postconviction relief from his first-degree-robbery conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the jury’s verdict finding Stokes guilty of first-degree robbery while acquitting him of first-degree burglary was not inconsistent, Stokes has failed to show his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object on this basis. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (16 pages)

            John Barton Goplerud and Leslie Clemenson (“Gopleruds”) appeal district court orders enjoining Lyle and Dorothy Hale from using an outbuilding on the Gopleruds’ property as a residential dwelling; ordering removal of structures and restoration of the lot to pre-construction condition; and awarding attorney fees and costs to the Napa Valley Owner’s Association (“Association”).  The Gopleruds argue the district court erred in: (1) concluding they violated restrictive covenants because the Association (a)  lacked authority to enforce the covenants and (b) unreasonably enforced the covenants, (2) ordering injunctive relief, and (3) awarding attorney fees to the Association.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the Association ratified the actions of the Board and Architectural Control Committee (ACC), and that ratification was retroactive, the Board was entitled to enforce the restrictive covenants.  Our de novo review of the record reveals the Board and ACC’s findings regarding the covenant violations are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.  The contractual nature of the covenants also justify the imposition of injunctive relief mandating removal of offending structures and barring prohibited use.  Finally, we find there was no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to the Association.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B. Clogg, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Matthew Pontier appeals several provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Jessica Pontier: (1) the spousal support provision; (2) the parenting schedule associated with the court’s award of joint physical care of their three children; (3) a child support award of $350 per month; and (4) a provision requiring him to pay Jessica’s portion of a custody-evaluation fee.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on all issues, but we modify that portion of the dissolution decree ordering child support of $350 and remand for recalculation of child support with the spousal support added and deducted as prescribed by Iowa Court Rule 9.5(1)(a)(1).  On remand, the court should also determine the appropriate amount of appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Potterfield and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (7 pages)

            Jehu Purnell challenges his conviction of one count of willful injury causing serious injury, arguing there is insufficient evidence to prove identity and specific intent.  OPINION HOLDS: There was sufficient evidence to convince a rational jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Purnell committed the offense and that he had the specific intent to cause serious injury.  We affirm.