August 2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child, A.F., who was born in October 2011.  Each parent challenges the determination that termination is in A.F.’s best interests and claims the court should have found that a permissive factor precludes termination and should have saved the parent-child relationships by placing A.F. in a guardianship with her paternal grandmother rather than terminating the parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The paternal grandmother’s willingness to enter into a guardianship does not make the arrangement the best choice for A.F., who has struggled for want of stability.  As each parent may spend the rest of A.F.’s childhood in prison, termination of their parental rights is in A.F.’s best interests and no permissive factor outweighs termination.  We affirm on both appeals.

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

            The mother appeals the district court’s termination of her parental rights to her son, J.H.  She argues the statutory grounds for termination were not met, termination was not in J.H.’s best interests, and she should have additional time for reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to the mother’s untreated mental-health and substance-abuse problems, we affirm the termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William S. Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, J.  (9 pages)

            The mother appeals the district court’s termination of her parental rights to her son, X.M.  She argues the State did not prove X.M. could not be safely returned to her custody, the State did not make reasonable efforts to return X.M. to her custody, and termination is not in X.M.’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly terminated the mother’s parental rights under paragraph (f) because she is unable to provide the supervision he needs.  Termination is in X.M.’s best interests, and no factors preclude termination.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a child, born in 2010.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court and termination was not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, contending (1) the State failed to prove the ground for termination cited by the district court and (2) termination should have been deferred for six months.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights to his child.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John D. Ackerman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J. (4 pages)

Duane Yates appeals the district court order dismissing his motion to reopen a postconviction-relief (PCR) action that was dismissed ten years earlier due to his counsel’s failure to prosecute the matter.  OPINION HOLDS: Following the dismissal of his first PCR action, Yates had the opportunity to have his claims heard and decided on the merits.  He cannot relitigate those claims.  Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Yates’s motion to reopen the first PCR proceeding.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Bradley McCall, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  McDonald, J., takes no part.  Per Curiam.  (13 pages)

           Cynthia Pesce appeals the district court’s actions in reassigning her seized-property claim to a civil matter, dismissing her second seized-property claim, and holding a hearing after she filed a motion to dismiss and notices of appeal.  Her attorney, Jaysen McCleary, petitions for writ of certiorari regarding the district court’s imposition of sanctions for his actions in the proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in managing Pesce’s seized-property claims or in holding the hearing.  Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., McDonald, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (10 pages)

           Michael Kelly appeals the dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Kelly’s claim that he received an illegal sentence is a claim that can be brought at any time; thus, we reverse the PCR court’s dismissal of that claim and remand to the PCR court.  As for the rest of his third PCR application, Kelly has not established that any exception to the three-year statute of limitations applies, and we agree with the PCR court that it is time-barred and must be dismissed. 

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, J.  (5 pages)

           Jeffrey Murdock appeals his conviction following his guilty plea for failure to comply with sex offender registry requirements, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Iowa Code sections 692A.104 and 692A.111 (2016).  He contends his trial counsel was ineffective in allowing him to plead guilty when there was no factual basis for the plea.  The State asserts the record establishes a factual basis.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree the record contains a factual basis for Murdock’s guilty plea, we affirm.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (19 pages)

           Darrell McBride appeals from his convictions for two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1)(b)(2) (2016).  McBride maintains there is insufficient evidence to support either conviction.  He also challenges two of the district court’s evidentiary rulings and maintains he should have been granted a new trial due to juror bias.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports both of McBride’s convictions, he has not established that the district court wrongly decided his evidentiary objections, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for new trial on the basis of juror bias, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Thomas G. Reidel and Nancy S. Tabor, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  (10 pages)

            Desmond Reeves appeals his convictions for robbery in the first degree and assault with intent to inflict serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, including evidence of Reeves’s intent to commit theft as an element of the offense of robbery.  We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding character evidence concerning a witness was not admissible because it was not relevant.  We find Reeves’s pro claims were not preserved or not supported by argument in his brief.  We affirm Reeves’s convictions.

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (5 pages)

      Ryan Stockbauer appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and possession of methamphetamine.  Stockbauer argues his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to alleged prosecutorial error or misconduct during voir dire, opening statement, presentation of evidence, and closing argument.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record is inadequate to assess the merits of the ineffective-assistance claims, we uphold the conviction but preserve the ineffective-assistance claims for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.