Court of Appeals Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (12 pages)

            In an interlocutory appeal, Dominick Marcott claims the district court should have granted his motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: An officer searched the glove compartment and center console of Marcott’s vehicle, looking for evidence of Marcott’s identity, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration after Marcott refused the officer’s requests.  The State claims the search was valid under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.  The officer did not have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime was in the vehicle, and there was no exigency requiring a search at that time.  We reverse the district court’s decision denying the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda Fangman and David Odekirk, Judges.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.  Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (21 pages)

            Lincoln Savings Bank (the Bank) initiated foreclosure proceedings against Debra Emmert in July 2019.  Debra failed to respond, and the Bank twice asked for entry of default, which the court granted both times.  Eventually, the district court entered judgment against Debra for more than $5,000,000 and foreclosed on a property in Cedar Falls and a property in Coralville.  Debra appealed.  She then filed a motion to set aside the default and, when she did not get the ruling she wanted, a motion to enlarge and reconsider.  The district court again ruled against Debra, and she filed a second appeal.  At the parties’ joint request, Debra’s two appeals were consolidated.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Debra’s first appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction, all rulings that came after December 16, 2020, are nullities; we vacate them.  Limiting our consideration to the issues that arose before Debra’s first appeal, Debra has not shown an error in notice or service that invalidates the foreclosure judgment against her.  We affirm the December 2, 2020 foreclosure and judgment decree. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, John D. Ackerman, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (13 pages)

                Raul Martinez appeals his convictions for specified unlawful activity, two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and failure to affix a drug-tax stamp.  He argues the district court abused its discretion by overruling his hearsay objections to the admission of an investigative report written by law enforcement and a search warrant application, and their admission violated his constitutional right to confrontation.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the violation of Martinez’s right to confrontation was not harmless, we reverse his convictions on counts one, two, three, and five, and we remand for a new trial on those counts.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  DECREE AFFIRMED; INTERIM SUPPORT ORDER VACATED.  Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (23 pages)

            In this consolidated appeal, Shadron Kats (Shad) challenges the economic provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Melissa Kats (Missy) and a post-decree order for temporary spousal support.  Both parties request an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The award of $3000.00 per month in spousal support to Missy is equitable in light of the parties’ respective earnings and expenses.  Because the district court’s valuation of the property at issue is supported by the record, we decline Shad’s invitation to adjust the amount of the property equalization payment.  And we affirm the award of Missy’s trial attorney fees and one-half of her expert witness fees.  II. The district court was without jurisdiction to enter the post-decree order for interim support, and we vacate that order.  III. Considering the parties’ respective positions and the merits of the appeal, we award Missy her appellate attorney fees and expenses. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Myron Gookin, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A beneficiary appeals a district court order granting an executor’s application to sell real estate.  The beneficiary argues that as the estate was not insolvent, abatement was not needed.  The beneficiary further asserts the district court failed to comply with the statutory order for abatement.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s determination that abatement was necessary to satisfy the debts and charges of the estate.  However, as the district court failed to follow the applicable abatement statute, we reverse as to the order of abatement.  Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (22 pages)

            James Harris appeals from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).  He argues his counsel was ineffective, the court abused its discretion in not appointing substitute counsel, the case was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, his counsel’s inefficacy lead to cumulative and structural error, and the PCR court’s opinion contained internal inconsistencies.  OPINION HOLDS: Harris failed to prove, on any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, that his counsel breached an essential duty that prejudiced Harris.  The court did not abuse its discretion in maintaining Harris’s counsel.  There was no prosecutorial misconduct that prejudiced Harris.  There is no presumption of prejudice in ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.  There was no cumulative error present, and Harris failed to preserve his structural error challenge.  We find no internal inconsistencies in the PCR court’s opinion and affirm the district court’s ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (12 pages)

            Dean Hettinger appeals his convictions for murder in the first degree and child endangerment resulting in death, alleging the evidence does not support the convictions and the district court should have granted his motion for a new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find substantial evidence supports the jury’s guilty verdicts and the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the denial of Hettinger’s motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            Holli Lillibridge appeals her conviction and sentence for a false report to a law enforcement authority.  Lillibridge asserts the court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal as the charge was not supported by sufficient evidence for conviction.  She also asserts the court did not instruct the jury properly.  OPINION HOLDS: There is sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, and the jury instruction is a proper statement of the law.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Ann M. Gales, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (10 pages)

            Ivan Klingenberg appeals his conviction and sentence for operating while intoxicated.  OPINION HOLDS: We find sufficient evidence to support Klingenberg’s conviction, that any error in denying his right to allocution was harmless, and that Klingenberg waived his ability to challenge the district court’s decision to postpone making a determination of his ability to pay category “B” restitution.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, DeDra Schroeder, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A creditor brings a deficiency judgment action against a debtor.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the creditor failed to establish compliance with a statutory notice requirement, the district court did not err by finding for the debtor. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (12 pages)

            A defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for violating the terms of the sex offender registry.  He contends there is insufficient evidence that he had the requisite knowledge of the requirements imposed by the registry.  He also alleges the district court considered an improper factor when sentencing him.  OPINION HOLDS: We find sufficient evidence to affirm the conviction and conclude the district court did not consider an improper factor during sentencing.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, John Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (7 pages)

            David Hering appeals the dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief (PCR) as untimely.  He essentially argues (1) his actual-innocence claim serves as a new ground of fact excepting him from the statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018); (2) the statute of limitations violates equal protection; (3) ineffective assistance of prior PCR counsel should completely override the statute of limitations; (4) he presented new grounds of law excepting him from the statute of limitations;  (5) the PCR court erred or abused its discretion by not ruling on claims he raised pro se while represented by counsel; and (6) his PCR counsel was ineffective in failing to raise meritorious arguments and ensure they were preserved for appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no cause for reversal on the issues properly preserved and presented for our review, we affirm.