October 2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (9 pages)

            Cardnel Brown Jr. appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Brown failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence his counsel provided ineffective assistance.  We affirm the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Steven J. Oeth, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Mark Haase appeals his convictions for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, raising the claim of an invalidly executed search warrant.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the affiant police officer did not act with reckless disregard for the veracity of the informant.  We affirm Haase’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vogel, P.J., Tabor, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, P.J.  Dissent by Tabor, J. (24 pages)

            Justin Baker appeals his convictions and sentences for possession with intent to deliver marijuana and other charges.  He argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, his counsel was ineffective for failing to file another motion to suppress, and the district court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the court properly denied the motion to suppress, he has not shown prejudice resulted from his counsel’s failure to file a second motion, and the court adequately explained its reasoning for imposing his sentence.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would reverse the district court’s denial of Justin Baker’s motion to suppress.  I do not believe the State demonstrated the totality of the circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigatory stop of Baker’s vehicle.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vogel, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, J. (17 pages)

            Elias Wanatee appeals his conviction for second-degree murder, maintaining trial counsel was ineffective in failing to effectively object to hearsay testimony identifying “Eli” as the attacker and failing to seek the exclusion of testimony from a “jailhouse snitch,” and argues the cumulative effect of the errors resulted in prejudice.  Wanatee further argues the district court erred in permitting the State medical examiner to use the term “defensive wounds,” and by admitting into evidence a diagram from a pathology textbook illustrating “defensive wounds.”  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no breach of duty by counsel and no prejudice resulting from the district court’s admission of evidence relating to “defensive wounds,” we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., McDonald, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            By way of certiorari, Alan Lucas challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court’s finding of contempt.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the evidence sufficient to support the finding of contempt, affirm the decision of the district court, and annul the writ of certiorari. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  Special concurrence by Doyle, J.  (12 pages)

            Travis West appeals his convictions for involuntary manslaughter and delivery of a controlled substance, raising claims of insufficiency of the evidence, abuse of the trial court’s discretion in admitting certain evidence, and failure by the trial court to merge the crimes charged at sentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm West’s convictions for involuntary manslaughter and delivery of a controlled substance.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur specially concur to question the propriety of the two-step analysis set forth in State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995).  However, I recognize that we are bound by precedent and must look to our supreme court to revisit the issue.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Paul L. Macek, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Jackie Spitzmiller appeals the spousal support provision of the decree dissolving her marriage, claiming the district court should not have reduced its initial award to her following its grant of Scott Spitzmiller’s motion for enlarged findings.  Scott cross-appeals, challenging the property equalization payment order.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm as modified on appeal; we affirm on cross-appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, James M. Richardson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  (10 pages)

            Colby Puckett appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Puckett’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and he has failed meet his burden to show plea counsel was ineffective, the district court did not err in denying his application. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Danilson, C.J.  Special concurrence by McDonald, J.  Concurrence in part and dissent in part by Mullins, J.  (50 pages)

            Max Hansen appeals, and Karin Hansen cross-appeals from the district court’s decree dissolving their marriage.  Max asserts the district court’s award of spousal support is inappropriate in this case.  Max also challenges the court’s order he pay a portion of Karin’s trial-attorney fees.  Karin contends the district court should have ordered a greater spousal-support award.  Karin also argues the district court improperly determined the parties’ most recent postnuptial agreement controlled the division of assets, and erred in not awarding her a share of the equity in Max’s Davenport residence.  Karin requests attorney fees on appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude there is no reason to disturb the district court’s property distribution, and the district court properly awarded Karin trial-attorney fees.  However, we also conclude the district court’s spousal support award was inequitable and modify the spousal-support award.  We deny Karin’s request for appellate-attorney fees.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the property division as equitable and concur in the spousal support award because Max conceded he was willing to pay spousal support at oral argument.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I dissent from the modification of the permanent alimony to Karin as inequitable in light of the award to Max of 100% of the roughly $9.6 million, 250% increase in the value of his premarital property and netting him $15.7 million after this eight-year marriage.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Christopher Foy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Plaintiff appeals the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on a medical malpractice action.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the plaintiff’s expert witnesses and the district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J. Moon, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (16 pages)

            Ames 2304, LLC appeals the district court order annulling its writ of certiorari.  It contends the Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment acted illegally in denying it a permit for its proposed remodeling plan by incorrectly applying the law in interpreting the zoning ordinance concerning nonconforming use.  It also contends substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the plan would increase the intensity of the nonconforming use.  OPINION HOLD: The municipal ordinance’s definition of “intensity” does not apply to residential uses.  However, limiting the application of the “increase in intensity” test to just enlargements, expansions, or extensions of nonconforming uses would be contrary to the purposes of the zoning ordinance.  Looking elsewhere in the ordinance for a definition of intensity to apply to residential uses, the only instance we could find ties intensity to the number of dwelling units.  Because the proposed remodel does not increase the number of dwelling units, it would not increase the intensity of the nonconforming use.  In relying on its erroneous interpretation of the zoning ordinance, the Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment acted illegally in denying Ames 2304 a permit for its proposed interior remodel.  We reverse the district court order annulling the writ of certiorari and remand to the district court for entry of an order sustaining the writ.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Wittig, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., Tabor, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Sean Hilliard appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree.  Through his appellate counsel, he argues his trial counsel was ineffective on several grounds.  In a pro se brief, he also argues his jury was not drawn from a fair cross-section of the community and the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction, he did not preserve his jury-composition argument, and we cannot evaluate his ineffective-assistance claims on the record before us.  Therefore, we affirm his conviction and preserve his ineffective-assistance claims for potential postconviction proceedings.