May 2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (3 pages)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(g) and (l) (2018).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Ann Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children; she contends the district court erred in finding the statutory grounds for termination were met and termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the district court did not err in finding the statutory grounds for termination were met by clear and convincing evidence.  Considering the children’s safety and need for permanency in the long- and short-term, their best interests are furthered by termination of her parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children, asking us to place the children in a guardianship with a relative and apply one of the statutory exceptions to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the evidence, we agree termination is in the children’s best interests and decline to apply the exception to termination provided in Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) (2018). 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination and contends termination is not in the child’s best interests.  The father additionally challenges the denial of his motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend the juvenile court’s findings.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence establishes the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2018).  Terminating parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and the juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request for a six-month extension.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (8 pages)

            Julie Ann Breeding appeals following her convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and failure to possess a drug tax stamp as a second or subsequent offender, raising claims of insufficient evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and district court abuse of sentencing discretion.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the jury’s findings of guilt and the district court’s sentences.  We preserve the prosecutorial misconduct claim for possible postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Shawn Showers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            Christopher Johnson appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Most of Johnson’s claims concern his counsel’s trial strategy rather than a breach of duty.  Of the two remaining claims, we find his trial counsel did not breach a duty by failing to ensure he testified at trial and his counsel’s failure to depose one witness did not prejudice him.  Johnson has failed to show his trial counsel was ineffective with regard to any individual claim or cumulative prejudice.  Accordingly, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G. Linn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (20 pages)

            Nicholas Cagle appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree.  He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, failing to lodge foundation and confrontation objections to the admission of a video exhibit, failing to object to claimed vouching testimony by expert witness in support of child witness, and that trial court erred in overruling his hearsay objection to admission of child witness’s recorded pre-trial interview.  OPINION HOLD: Trial counsel was not ineffective, and trial court did not err in admitting video exhibit.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (24 pages)

            Daniel Dawson appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) challenging his convictions for murder in the second degree; assault with intent to inflict serious injury; and domestic abuse assault, second offense.  On appeal, Dawson argues for the first time that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a mistrial during closing arguments based on prosecutorial error; Dawson maintains all counsel since his first have been ineffective in failing to raise the issue sooner.  Dawson raises an additional sixteen claims without the assistance of counsel; we address each one below.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered each of Dawson’s seventeen claims of ineffective assistance and finding no reversible error, we affirm the denial of Dawson’s application for PCR. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCES VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J. (11 pages)

            Ramon Hernandez-Mendoza appeals his convictions and sentence for homicide by vehicle, controlled substance violations, and supplying alcohol to minors.  He argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis of causation for the homicide by vehicle charge.  He also argues his sentences are illegal because the sentencing order is inconsistent on whether it applied an enhancement and it imposed a minimum term of confinement on one charge without authority.  The State in turn argues his sentences are illegal because the court waived a minimum term of confinement on other charges without authority.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports finding his intoxicated driving was a factual cause and—if applicable—a proximate cause of death, we find his counsel was not ineffective.  We also find his sentences are illegal because the court misapplied minimum terms of confinement.  Therefore, we affirm his convictions, vacate his sentences in part, and remand for the district court to amend the judgment and sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  Special Concurrence by Mullins, J.  Dissent by Vogel, C.J.  (9 pages)

            John and Dessie Rottinghaus appeal from the district court’s order granting the estate’s motion for summary judgment.  The Rottinghauses contend (1) Iowa Code section 614.17A (2017) was not “timely raised as a defense,” (2) the estate was not “a proper party” to raise section 614.17A as a defense, and (3) the language of sections 614.17A and 614.24 does not “bar the action by the claimants.”  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the estate.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: The majority opinion in this case and the decision in West Lakes Properties, L.C. v. Greenspon Property Management, Inc., No. 16-1463, 2017 WL 4317297 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017) are limited by the facts and issues presented.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because I view this case as a simple breach of contract claim and not subject to Iowa Code section 614.17A, I respectfully dissent. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nicholas Scott, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (15 pages)

            Earnest Bynum appeals following his conviction for falsely reporting a criminal offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 718.6(1) (2016).  Bynum asserts he was denied an impartial jury of his peers, the court abused its discretion in allowing prior-bad-acts evidence and photographs of firearms used during the police response, and the court erred in denying Bynum’s requested jury instruction that carrying weapons is not a crime if the person has a permit.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Bynum’s motions for mistrial or its evidentiary and instructional rulings, we affirm.