2018 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

            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.