October 2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Martha L. Mertz and Dustria A. Relph, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            Jonathon Pion appeals after pleading guilty to violating a custodial order.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because there was a factual basis for the district court to accept the guilty plea and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (3 pages)

            K.H. appeals a district court ruling finding her to be seriously mentally impaired as defined by Iowa Code section 229.1(20)(a) and (c) (2017) and ordering her involuntary commitment, contending the serious-mental-impairment finding is unsupported by sufficient evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court’s finding of serious mental impairment is supported by sufficient evidence and affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (12 pages)

            Eric Hayes appeals the denial of his request to modify his child and spousal support obligations, claiming the district court should have adjusted the amounts to account for changes in income, and any changes should apply retroactively.  Additionally, he requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find Eric’s decrease in income was not self-inflicted, modification is warranted.  We remand to the district court for recalculation of Eric’s child and spousal support obligations in line with the parties’ new incomes.  Reductions in support will not apply retroactively.  Each party is responsible for their own appellate attorney fees, and we divide appellate costs equally between the parties.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Casey D. Jones, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, J.  (5 pages)

                Jessey Pritchett appeals his conviction and sentence for the crime of escape.  Pritchett first asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel allowed him to enter a written guilty plea.  He claims that had he appeared for a plea hearing, on the record, he would have been informed his plea may impact his probationary status on his prior conviction.  He also claims his counsel was ineffective by allowing him to request immediate sentencing, thereby limiting his ability to “consider his options.”  OPINION HOLDS: We find he has not proved his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, and therefore we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, John M. Wright, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (10 pages)

            The defendant appeals her conviction and sentence of arson in the second degree. OPINION HOLDS: Defendant’s attorney did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment challenging the factual basis of defendant’s plea.  The restitution order is not supported by the record.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            S.J. appeals involuntary-commitment orders under Iowa Code chapters 125 and 229 (2018).  She argues the district court’s findings that she suffers from a substance-related disorder, as provided in Iowa Code sections 125.2(14) and 125.75(2)(a), and a serious mental impairment, as defined in section 229.1(20), are not supported by sufficient evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court’s finding that S.J. posed a danger to herself as a result of her cannabis use disorder is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  We therefore affirm the chapter 125 involuntary-commitment order.  We conclude the finding that S.J. suffered from a serious mental impairment at the time of the commitment hearing is unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.  We reverse the chapter 229 order and remand to the district court with instructions to deny the application under chapter 229 and terminate the proceeding. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Timothy T. Jarman, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (2 pages)

            Defendant appeals his sentences for possession of a controlled substance and theft in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS: Defendant’s waiver of his right of allocution was knowing and voluntary.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (4 pages)

            David Leyh challenges his conviction for possession of marijuana, first offense, claiming ineffective assistance because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his plea.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the record had sufficient factual basis to support the charge and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Wittig, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            The executor of the estate of John P. Shanahan appeals a district court order denying his attorney’s request for extraordinary fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the district court’s denial of the executor’s extraordinary-fee application and remand for entry of an award for the requested amount. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Daniel P. Kitchen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (4 pages)

            The mother appeals the order placing T.B. in her father’s custody, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the disposition while she appealed the child’s removal.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the issue of where to place T.B. is distinct from the issue on appeal of whether T.B. should be removed from her mother’s care and custody, we find the district court retained jurisdiction to modify the dispositional order while the appeal was pending.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the child could not be returned to the parents’ custody at the time of the termination hearing, clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for termination pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018).  The evidence also shows that termination is in the child’s best interests and a delay of six months is unwarranted.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Danilson, C.J., McDonald, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  Special Concurrence by Danilson, C.J.  (23 pages)

           Defendant Roger Osborn appeals his convictions and sentences for twenty-six counts of possession of a visual depiction of a minor engaging in a prohibited sexual act.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in denying Osborn’s motion to suppress his interview with police, the evidence was sufficient to support Osborn’s conviction, and the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I specially concur to acknowledge the issue of whether Osborn was in custody is a close question.  Notwithstanding evidence that might support a finding Osborn was in custody, as soon as Osborn arrived at the police station he was informed he could leave at any time and he was provided transport to his home after the interview.  Considering all of these factors, I concur in this close decision.