April 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J. (3 pages)

            Maliek Todd-Harris appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court acted within its discretion in denying Todd-Harris’s motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct.  He failed to preserve his claim the trial court should be required to conduct an investigation into how much of the trial the juror had missed. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Mark J. Eveloff, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (17 pages)

            David Nuno appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree sexual abuse.  He argues his right to confront his witnesses was violated, his motion for new trial was incorrectly decided using the wrong standard, and his trial counsel was ineffective several reasons.  OPINION HOLDS: Nuno was not denied the right to confront witnesses, and the district court did not apply the incorrect standard in denying Nuno’s motion for new trial.  We preserve Nuno’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for possible postconviction-relief proceedings. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Gamble, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Bryon Jones challenges the district court’s award of punitive damages and attorney fees.  He argues the district court (1) violated his right to due process when it adopted the proposed findings of Papillon on remand and (2) erred when it ordered him to pay trial attorney and appellate attorney fees without having evidence of either party’s finances.  OPINION HOLDS: Jones’s complaint regarding his due process rights involves a previous order by the district court—not the final order before us now.  He has not established a due process violation regarding the final order.  Additionally, he provides no authority to support his claim the court is required to consider or make a determination as to either party’s need or ability to pay before ordering the payment of fees pursuant to Iowa Code section 808B.8 (2015).  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (3 pages)

            Michael Fry appeals his judgment and sentence for possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, as a habitual felon.  He contends, “[T]he trial court erred by failing to consider [his] request for new counsel, violating his Sixth Amendment Right to counsel.”  OPINION HOLDS: The record is inadequate to resolve Fry’s claim that he was entitled to substitute counsel either based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship or because of a conflict of interest, as he alleges.  Accordingly, we affirm his judgment and sentence and preserve his claim for possible postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G. Linn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J. (11 pages)

            Earl Booth-Harris appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court properly denied Booth-Harris’s motion to suppress based on a claim of an impermissible suggestive identification procedure.  We preserve for a possible postconviction relief action defendant’s due process claim raised under the Iowa Constitution and his claim defense counsel should have requested a different eyewitness identification instruction.  We affirm Booth-Harris’s conviction for first-degree murder

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (10 pages)

            The district court ruled in favor of a condominium association and ordered a condominium owner to return units it modified to their original condition.  The court declined to grant the association’s request for attorney fees.  The owner and the association appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm all aspects of the district court’s final order except the grant of injunctive relief.  We reverse that portion of the final order and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the Association for $5095.48 plus interest.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (6 pages)

            Jacolby Pendleton appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (1) challenging the specificity of the postconviction court’s findings of fact, (2) contending his mandatory minimum sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and (3) arguing his attorneys were ineffective in several respects.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the postconviction court made fact findings on the issues raised.  Pendleton was an adult offender, so his mandatory minimum sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  In terms of the defendant’s representation by counsel during various phases, we find the sentencing argument unpersuasive; none of Pendleton’s attorneys were ineffective in failing to raise the cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims.  We preserve the remaining ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for a possible second postconviction-relief action.  We affirm the denial of Pendleton’s postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (7 pages)

            Bobbi Barden appeals her conviction for possession of methamphetamine, contending the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence retrieved from her purse because she did not consent to the search.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that Barden’s consent to the search of her purse was voluntary.  We affirm Barden’s judgment, conviction, and sentence for possession of methamphetamine, first offense.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (7 pages)

Dean Ott appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree theft, arguing it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to prohibit the admission of certain evidence and counsel was ineffective. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the witness.  We affirm the district court’s exclusion of the proposed evidence of certain legal proceedings.  We find the record inadequate to address the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and preserve it for postconviction relief.  We affirm Ott’s judgment and sentence for second-degree theft. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (7 pages)

            Cameron Singleton appeals from judgment and sentence imposed upon his convictions for first-degree burglary, stalking in violation of a protective order, and eluding.  He contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the habitual offender stipulation colloquy; the court violated his due process rights and abused its discretion when it considered risk-assessment information contained in the presentence investigation report; and the court erred in stating he may be assessed attorney fees on appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: Singleton’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails for lack of prejudice.  He did not raise the due process challenge below and we do not address it here.  However, because the district court entered a restitution order without a finding of reasonable ability to pay, we reverse the part of the sentencing order regarding restitution and remand. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David N. May, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (6 pages)

            Perry Fischer appeals the summary judgment ruling to dismiss his application for postconviction relief.  He argues summary judgment was inappropriate as there were genuine issues of material fact, and he asserts his claims are not time-barred, despite the sixteen-year period between conviction and the application.  In addition, Fischer raises ineffective-assistance claims against his trial counsel and postconviction counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude summary judgment was appropriate because Fischer’s claims are not within the three-year statute of limitations and no exception applies.  Additionally, we find Fischer’s ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel are time-barred and he failed to prove postconviction counsel was ineffective.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Considered on rehearing by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The appellant appeals the district court’s ruling affirming an adverse agency decision.  OPINION HOLDS: The appellant has failed to preserve error on a freedom-of-association claim that it never raised in the district court.  Although an at-will employment relationship existed, the Iowa Civil Rights Act prohibits unlawful discrimination against an employee based on the employee’s age.  Because there is substantial evidence in the record that appellant discriminated against employees because of their ages, we affirm the district court ruling.  We affirm the district court’s ruling that affirmed the agency’s award of attorney fees incurred by Kelly and Fishnick through September 13, 2016.  We remand for a hearing concerning an award to Kelly and Fishnick for reasonable attorney fees, including appellate attorney fees, incurred after September 13, 2016.