Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (7 pages)

Jack Deaton appeals from his convictions for assault by using or displaying a dangerous weapon and assault causing bodily injury.  He argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon.  He also raises several claims of ineffective assistance, including that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a new trial on both counts based on the weight of the evidence being contrary to the verdicts and by failing to object to several portions of testimony.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence supports Deaton’s conviction for assault by using or displaying a dangerous weapon.  The rest of Deaton’s claims, brought under the framework of ineffective assistance, are preserved for a postconviction-relief action.  We affirm Deaton’s convictions.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (11 pages)

            Joseph Manatt (Joe) and Tanam Real Estate, LLC, (Tanam) appeal a district court order granting a new trial.  Manatt’s Inc. cross-appeals, arguing the district court should have limited the new trial’s scope.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review of the record, we find there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s denial of Joe’s and Tanam’s motion for directed verdict on the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.  We also find the answers provided on the verdict form were inconsistent and cannot be harmonized in accordance with the evidence presented at trial.  Finally, the breach-of-fiduciary-duty and damages issues are not so distinct and separable to warrant retrial solely on damages. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Mark T. Hostager, District Associate Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Jay Genthe appeals from his sentence, including the order nunc pro tunc filed after the initial sentencing order.  Genthe understands the court’s second order to show the court reconsidered his sentence and maintains the court’s reconsideration was illegal because it was not done in accordance with Iowa Code section 903.2 (2019).  We treat Genthe’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant the petition.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not err in its use of the order nunc pro tunc, we annul the writ.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Applicant appeals the district grant of the State’s motion for summary dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief from his conviction of first-degree murder in 1982, based on being untimely, beyond the three-year statute of limitation in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2016) and there not being a new ground of fact or law.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court ruling is supported by the evidence and a correct application of law.  We affirm the dismissal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge, and Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (11 pages)

            John Green appeals his convictions for felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, and two counts of failure to affix a drug tax stamp.  OPINION HOLDS: There is insufficient evidence Green constructively possessed a firearm or a bag of cocaine, both of which were found in the ceiling of a jointly occupied apartment.  So we reverse his convictions related to possession of the firearm and cocaine.  But we find sufficient evidence establishes Green constructively possessed marijuana with intent to deliver.  So we affirm his conviction for possession with intent to deliver marijuana and the corresponding conviction for failure to affix a drug tax stamp.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Shawn R. Showers, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (11 pages)

            Carolyn McBeth appeals the district court’s ruling in favor of Charles and Janet McBeth on their breach-of-contract claim, and Charles and Janet McBeth cross-appeal the adverse rulings in a replevin action.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Because clear and convincing evidence shows the parties agreed to new lease terms prior to the 2014 crop year, we affirm the finding that Charles and Janet are entitled to $388,756.50 in damages on their breach-of-contract claim.  II. The uncontroverted evidence establishes Charles’s ownership in the farm equipment listed in his replevin petition and the equipment listed in Carolyn’s counterclaim.  We reverse the portion of the district court’s order denying Charles’s replevin claim and remand to the district court to issue a writ of replevin for the seven items listed in the petition and contested on appeal or an order in replevin entering judgment against Carolyn for the value of the equipment.  Since not contested on appeal, that portion of the court’s order ordering the return to Charles of the John Deere 4440 tractor and the 2007 Caterpillar D6G bulldozer is affirmed.  We also reverse the portion of the court’s order finding in favor of Carolyn on her counterclaim and remove the $45,000 credit against the breach-of-contract judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Roxanne and Tony Rieder appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Mercy Medical Center.  The Rieders argue (1) “the peer review privilege is unreasonable when applied in negligent credentialing cases” and (2) the district court “fail[ed] to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the [Rieders],” “abused its discretion by weighing the evidence,” and “abused its discretion in excluding highly relevant evidence.”  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court was not allowed to weigh the evidence on summary judgment, we reverse the court’s second summary judgment ruling, and because the district court considered foreseeability in determining that Mercy did not owe the Rieders a duty, we also reverse the district court’s first, partial summary judgment ruling.  We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Wichang Chawech appeals the district court’s entry of judgment and sentence on his Alford guilty plea, contending his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to suppress evidence gained in a warrantless search of his vehicle and challenge the factual basis for the plea.  OPINION HOLDS: We vacate the sentence and remand the case for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J. (9 pages)

            Rodney Henricksen appeals his conviction of murder in the second degree, raising claims with regard to his justification defense and the admission of testimony from a lip-reading expert.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Montgomery County, Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (7 pages)

            Scott Rolenc appeals the ruling on his action for specific performance of a stock purchase agreement.  OPINION HOLDS: After considering Scott’s arguments, we conclude the district court properly interpreted the terms of the stock purchase agreement to apportion the sale of Ronald Rolenc’s shares of the corporation between Scott and Judith Rolenc and to require Judith to purchase Scott’s shares when he was terminated in July 2017. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adams County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2019).  The father does not deny his failure to live up to his financial obligation to his children but instead claims good cause.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find no merit in his claim that lack of employment and mental-health disorders prevented him from paying child support, we find clear and convincing evidence that Jeffrey failed to provide financial support without good cause.  And it was in the children’s best interests to terminate his parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Dissent by May, J.  (12 pages)

            Daniel Penticoff appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his postconviction-relief application as time-barred.  Penticoff argues his freestanding actual-innocence claim, based on Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2018), falls under the “ground of fact or law” exception to the three-year limitations period of Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018).  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Penticoff’s actual-innocence claim is a ground of law that Penticoff could not have raised within the limitations period.  We do not reach the merits of his actual-innocence claim but remand for further proceedings.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Penticoff’s claims are barred by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018) because (1) Penticoff failed to demonstrate his claims are based a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the three years after he was sentenced; and (2) Penticoff failed to file his application within those three years.  The district court was right to dismiss Penticoff’s application.  I respectfully dissent.