May 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Patrick M. Carr (suppression) and Nancy L. Whittenburg (trial), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Carr, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  Special concurrence by Tabor, P.J.  (18 pages)

            Austin Muilenburg appeals his convictions of three drug-related crimes following a trial on the minutes of evidence.  He argues: (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence, contending the warrant was unsupported by probable cause; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the probable cause supporting the warrant, specifically the qualifications of the police officer who applied for the warrant; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions of possession of cocaine and prescription drugs without a valid prescription.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there was a substantial basis for the issuing magistrate to conclude probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant and the search of Muilenburg’s bedroom did not exceed the scope of the warrant.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Muilenburg’s motion to suppress.  We find Muilenburg has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We additionally find there is sufficient evidence to support Muilenburg’s convictions for possession of cocaine and prescription drugs without a valid prescription.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s assertion that knowledge of the nature of the prescription drugs is not an element of Iowa Code section 155A.21(1) (2017).  The court in State v. Reeves, 209 N.W.2d 18, 23 (Iowa 1973), found proof of unlawful “possession” requires the State to establish the accused knew of the nature of the substance in his or her possession.  I believe the same proof requirement applies to the term “possession” in section 155A.21(1).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin A. Parker, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Timothy Seils challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress following his conviction for operating while intoxicated, third offense.  Seils maintains police officers (1) violated his constitutional rights when they searched his vehicle and (2) improperly invoked implied consent pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.6 (2017) without satisfying the statutory conditions precedent.  He asks that we reverse the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and remand for new trial.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because the State failed to prove the implied-consent procedures had been satisfied at the time the trooper invoked Seils’s implied consent, the evidence of Seils’s refusal to test is not admissible.  Additionally, the evidence obtained by the illegal search of Seils vehicle should been suppressed by the district court.  We reverse the district court’s denial of Seil’s motion to suppress the evidence and remand for a new trial without the suppressed evidence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Mullins, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J. (10 pages)

            Joshua Sullivan appeals from his conviction on two counts of indecent exposure, each in violation of Iowa Code section 709.9 (2017).  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings of guilt and a jury instruction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is substantial evidence to support both convictions, and we find no error in the jury instruction given, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Lars G. Anderson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Michael Francis Watson appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, to wit: methamphetamine.  He argues trial counsel was ineffective in allowing him to plead guilty without a factual basis that he knowingly possessed methamphetamine because there were no lab reports in the record and the minutes of evidence did not identify the “criminalist” who would have provided relevant testimony.  OPINION HOLDS: We take the minutes of evidence as facts in determining whether a factual basis exists for a plea.  Because we find the record discloses ample evidence to satisfy this element of the offense, trial counsel was not ineffective, and we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cherokee County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J. (11 pages)

            Eddie DeLong appeals from judgment and sentence entered upon his convictions for sexual abuse in the third degree as a habitual offender and supplying alcohol to a minor.  He asserts the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to present testimony about the minor complainant’s prior sex life pursuant to Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412.  He also challenges the habitual-offender colloquy and the fine imposed upon his conviction as a habitual offender.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s rape-shield ruling.  Accordingly, we affirm DeLong’s convictions.  But we reverse the habitual-offender judgment and remand for further proceedings because DeLong’s stipulation of prior offenses fell short of the requirements in State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 45–46 (Iowa 2017).  We need not reach the issue concerning the concededly erroneous fine as resentencing will be required. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (5 pages)

            Robert Walters and Sandi Heter, the objectors, appeal the district court’s ruling on their objection to the final report.  They argue the district court incorrectly determined co-executors, Richard Walters and Shirley Shirley, had not breached their fiduciary duties.  The co-executors argue the district court’s ruling was proper because the objectors have failed to meet their burden of proof.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we defer to the district court’s credibility findings and find no credible evidence warranting a disruption of the district court’s ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (2 pages)

            Robin Keith appeals following pleas of guilty to a number of charges, contending trial counsel was ineffective and the court erred in accepting his plea.  He asserts the “strong and unfamiliar psychological medication” he was taking interfered with his cognitive abilities and prevented him from understanding his rights and the consequences of entering a guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: The record before us is not adequate to explore this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim and we preserve the claim for possible postconviction-relief proceedings. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J. (11 pages)

            Miguel Angel Lorenzo Baltazar appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree.  He argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions on his justification defense, and both parties argue the court abused its discretion in allowing only certain character evidence of the decedent.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the 2017 amendments to Chapter 704 of the Iowa Code should have resulted in the jury being instructed without the “alternative course of action” language, we find counsel breached an essential duty in failing to object when the older version of the justification instruction was given, and prejudice resulted.  The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove Lorenzo Baltazar acted with the specific intent to kill, and thus we reverse and remand for new trial.  Further, should the issue of the character evidence arise during the new trial, we also find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing only certain character evidence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, George L. Stigler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (14 pages)

            The mother appeals the district court award of shared physical care with the father of their one-and-a-half year old son, who, because of a significant hearing deficiency has bilateral cochlear implants.  She contends that (1) the trial court failed to comply with Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(1) in not filing written findings; (2) the court should adopt a “special needs best interests” standard for determining physical care of a special-needs child, and (3) shared care with the father is not in the son’s best interest.  Father requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon de novo review, we find (1) mother failed to preserve error on the written findings issue, but we still conduct a de novo review; (2) we must decline mother’s invitation to adopt a new legal standard as it applies to special-needs children and find the standards in current law provide adequate consideration of special needs of the child; (3) shared physical care of the child is in his best interest; and (4) we decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (5 pages)

            Darin Godfrey appeals the summary dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Godfrey seeks to challenge his requirement to register for the sex offender registry, which has not yet been formally determined by the Iowa Department of Public Safety, the issue is not ripe for review, and summary dismissal was appropriate.  In addition, Godfrey’s second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A grandmother appeals the dismissal of her petitions for guardianship of her two grandchildren, arguing the establishment of guardianships is in the children’s best interests.  She also requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: The grandmother did not rebut the statutory preference for parents to retain care and control of their children.  It is in the children’s best interests to deny the guardianships and permit the father to retain care and control of the children.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (3 pages)

            Gregory Kuchera appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.  He alleges his trial counsel in guilty plea proceedings was ineffective in failing to request withdrawal of his guilty plea when his statements showed he was confused and potentially incompetent.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record is inadequate on direct appeal, we preserve the claims for postconviction-relief proceedings.