Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Robert Jackson appeals a district court order foreclosing a mechanic’s lien in favor of Marvin Swan.  Jackson contends the trial court (1) should not have excluded certain exhibits, (2) acted inequitably in concluding Swan substantially performed the contract, and (3) should not have awarded trial attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            Jonathan Hart appeals his convictions of eluding pursuing law enforcement and criminal mischief.  He argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the State called him as a rebuttal witness and the district court improperly admitted evidence of text messages and telephone calls.  OPINION HOLDS: Seeing no reasonable trial strategy for defense counsel allowing the State to call Hart as a witness in violation of the rules of criminal procedure, we find Hart’s counsel breached an essential duty.  Because Hart’s rebuttal testimony strengthened a key link in the State’s chain of circumstantial evidence, we also find prejudice resulted from counsel’s breach of duty.  Hart is entitled to a new trial as a result.  We do not decide the admission-of-evidence issue.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (12 pages)

            William Riley appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS: (1) There was sufficient evidence that the sexual act was by force or against the complaining witness’s will.  (2) Iowa Code § 814.7 (2019) precludes consideration of Riley’s ineffective-assistance claim.  (3) The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Riley’s objections to a nurse’s testimony.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCED VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            Benjamin Freking appeals his conviction, following a bench trial on the minutes of evidence, of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana.  He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an allegedly unconstitutional traffic stop.  He also challenges a component of his sentence, the imposition of a drug abuse resistance education (DARE) surcharge.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Freking’s motion to suppress and conviction.  We vacate the imposition of the DARE surcharge as part of Freking’s sentence and remand the matter to the district court to enter a corrected sentencing order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Randy V. Hefner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (6 pages)

            William Burton appeals his conviction for second-degree robbery, contending there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports a finding Burton purposely put his victim in fear of immediate serious injury, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            Keith Wolf appeals the order granting summary disposition in favor of the State on his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Wolf needed to register for life at the time of his conviction, his ex post facto claim fails as a matter of law.  We affirm the grant of summary disposition to dismiss his PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Kourtney Hall appeals his judgment and sentence for two counts of suborning perjury and two counts of obstructing prosecution. He challenges (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings of guilt; (2) the admission of video evidence; and (3) the denial of his new trial motion.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Hall’s judgment and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            Lance Dixon appeals the summary disposition of his fifth application for postconviction relief (PCR).  He claims his application is not time-barred.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Dixon’s fifth PCR application was time-barred under section 822.3 (2018) and does not fall within the narrow Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 891 (Iowa 2018) exception, the PCR court properly granted summary disposition dismissing the application. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Heather L. Lauber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            Salvador Solis Ortega appeals from his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI).  OPINION HOLDS: There is sufficient evidence to support the district court’s determination of Solis’s guilt under both “under the influence” and alcohol concentration theories of OWI.  Solis has failed to preserve error on any due process challenge, and he has failed to preserve error on and waived any self-incrimination challenges to his conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            Joseph Snook appeals his sentences for first-degree theft, second-degree theft, and forgery.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Snook’s challenge to his sentences establishes good cause for his appeal.  Snook did not preserve error on his claim that the district court did not properly advise him concerning his right to appeal from a guilty plea.  The district court gave sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences on the two theft charges.  Further, the civil reimbursement order for jail fees and expenses was not subject to a limitation based on a reasonable ability to pay.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

            David Sanchez appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Sanchez has not shown his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and no prejudice resulted from any of his claimed errors because the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.  Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of his PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Margaret Reyes and Susan L. Christensen, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (57 pages)

            The defendants, Scott Clark and RealTuners, LLC, appeal from the $11,000,000 judgment entered against them, arguing they should get a new trial because the sanction entered against them was too harsh, the district court wrongly prevented them from presenting evidence to limit the award of damages, the damages awarded by the jury were improper and excessive, and the court’s award of common law attorney fees was in error.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defendants have not established a reversible error, we see no reason to disturb the jury’s awards, and we decline to consider the argument against the award of attorney fees as it is raised for the first time on appeal, we affirm.