March 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  The mother challenges the grounds for termination and claims termination is not in the child’s best interests and an exception should be applied to avoid termination.  The father does not challenge that grounds exist for termination, but like the mother, claims termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: There is clear and convincing evidence to support termination of parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) (2018).  In light of the parents’ unresolved substance-abuse and domestic-violence issues, termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We decline to apply an exception to termination.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Jennifer S. Bailey, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the juvenile court decision terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the mother did not show the Iowa Department of Human Services failed to act with due diligence in contacting relatives, she does not have standing to challenge the juvenile court’s decision to not permit the paternal grandmother to intervene, and she did not request additional services in a timely manner.  The father improperly attempted to join the first two issues raised by the mother.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the parental rights of the mother and father

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to her child, P.L., who was born in 2011.  The mother challenges the court’s denial of her motion, filed one day before the scheduled termination trial, requesting additional services and a six-month continuance of the trial.  She argues the State did not fulfill its duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with P.L.  OPINION HOLDS: Insofar as the mother challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to continue, we find no abuse of discretion.  The mother’s request for new or additional services one day before trial does not preserve her claim regarding reasonable efforts, and a delay of permanency would not be appropriate here.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist and termination of the mother’s rights will best provide for the children’s long-term nurturing and growth, and their physical, mental, and emotions needs, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, David C. Larson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately challenge the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Peter A. Keller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Ronald Dickey Mason appeals following a hearing on his restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the sheriff’s charges for room and board were not made available to the court at the time of Mason’s sentencing, the district court properly ordered Mason to pay the charges in a supplemental order.  Mason is not entitled to a reduction in restitution because he has failed to demonstrate he lacks the reasonable ability to pay his current restitution installments.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court order denying Mason’s requested relief following the restitution hearing. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  Special Concurrence by Vaitheswaran, J.  (8 pages)

            Appellants, Kurt and Carol Anderson, and cross-appellants, Jeffrey, Larry, and Charlotte England, challenge the Iowa Department of Transportation’s cancellation of an auction for a parcel of land.  OPINION HOLDS: To the extent the parties challenge the validity of certain contracts, we conclude the department of transportation, as an agency, did not have the authority to determine the validity of the contracts.  We conclude the department of transportation’s decision to cancel the auction did not violate the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I disagree with the majority’s statement that the DOT lacks authority to adjudicate the existence of a contract.  I believe Iowa Code section 306.23 (2016) confers the necessary authority.  That said, I would conclude the agency did not err in interpreting and analyzing section 306.23.  Accordingly, I concur in the result.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (8 pages)

            Nortavis Nortez Sallis appeals his convictions and sentence for possessing cocaine as a habitual offender, possessing a firearm as a felon, and possessing marijuana as a habitual offender.  He argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and abused its discretion when it admitted a photograph of a digital scale with an unknown white powder on it.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court properly denied Sallis’s motion to suppress, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of a digital scale.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson and Eliza J. Ovrom, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (13 pages)

            GemCap Lending I, LLC (GemCap) appeals the district court’s grant of declaratory judgment in favor of Church Crop Insurance Services, Inc. (Church Crop).  The district court found Crop USA Insurance Agency, Inc. (Crop USA), as a debtor of GemCap, could not pledge as security funds representing commissions it owed to Church Crop.  The court ordered the release of the disputed funds to Church Crop.  OPINION HOLDS: Although we do not fault Church Crop for feeling proprietary about the funds, we think the relevant contracts and Article 9 jurisprudence compel a different result.  We find Crop USA had rights in the disputed funds and could legally pledge the funds as security.  Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            David Fisher appeals his conviction for burglary in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Fisher’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be preserved for possible postconviction-relief proceedings because the present record is not adequate to address these issues on direct appeal.  We affirm Fisher’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Heard by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.  Opinion by McDonald, J.  (12 pages)

            Lynch Livestock appeals a district court order affirming a final agency action in a workers’ compensation proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: Kenneth Bursell failed to preserve the issue of whether substantial evidence supported the agency finding that Bursell’s unauthorized treatment was “reasonable and beneficial.”  The district court erred in concluding Lynch Livestock should bear responsibility for Bursell’s medical payments.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Darius Wright appeals his convictions for robbery in the first degree and willful injury.  He argues neither conviction is supported by substantial evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports both of Wright’s convictions, we affirm.