2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge.  ELUDING CONVICTION VACATED, SENTENCES VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J. (3 pages)

            Derek Morrison appeals his convictions and sentences after he pled guilty to various offenses.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the attempt to elude offense lacks a factual basis, we vacate this conviction and remand.  We also vacate the restitution portions of all the sentencing orders and remand.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Amber Leahy appeals her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2018), an aggravated misdemeanor.  Leahy alleges her legal representation fell below constitutional norms.  Leahy contends Iowa Code section 908.10A requires automatic parole revocation effective on the date of her new offense and she was unaware of that consequence.  Leahy claims she did not enter the guilty plea intelligently and voluntarily, and is entitled to have the plea set aside and to plead anew.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record is not developed enough to resolve Leahy’s claim of confusion about the consequences of entering the guilty plea, we preserve the matter for a potential postconviction-relief proceeding. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily Dean, District Associate Judge  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  Special concurrence by Doyle, J.  Dissent by Vaitheswaran, J.  (8 pages)

            Antonyo Machado appeals his plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance, first offense, asserting the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence rather than deferring judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: The record before us does not show Machado’s plea was conditioned upon the court granting Machado a deferred judgment.  The district court explained why it was not inclined to defer judgment, and the reasons given were not untenable or unreasonable.  The district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion.  We affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Based upon the record, including Machado’s signing the State’s plea offer, I agree with the majority that the record does not show Machado’s plea was conditioned upon the court granting him a deferred judgment.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I believe the plea was conditioned upon the court’s concurrence and, when the district court declined to grant Machado a deferred judgment as set forth in the written plea of guilty, the court was obligated to afford Machado the opportunity to withdraw the plea.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (4 pages)

            Timothy McGhee Jr. appeals his prison sentence on three counts of theft in the second degree and one count of theft in the fourth degree.  McGhee maintains the sentencing court considered unproven offenses when imposing sentence; he asks that we remand for resentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: Without more than the court’s statement it was considering McGhee’s “further offenses”—of which there were properly two to consider—McGhee has not met his burden of affirmatively establishing error.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON CONDITION AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (5 pages)

            Devontez Voigts appeals his convictions of second-degree sexual abuse and willful injury causing bodily injury.  He argues the district court erred in overruling his challenge to the racial composition of the jury pool, which violated his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that Voigts failed to meet his burden to establish a prima facie case of a fair cross-section violation.  However, because the parties did not have the benefit of recent refinements to Iowa law, we remand the matter to the district court to give Voigts an opportunity to develop his argument that his constitutional right to an impartial jury was violated; if the court finds a violation occurred, it shall grant Voigts a new trial. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily S. Dean, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J. (3 pages)

            Justin Fiems challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he knowingly acted in a manner creating a substantial risk to the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health of safety.  OPINION HOLDS: By locking his seven-year-old child in a bare basement room for ten to twelve hours a night and leaving the child without access to a bathroom, communication, or egress, the jury could find Fiems knowingly created a substantial risk of emotional, mental, and physical harm.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Bradley McCall, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            The defendants appeal the district court order granting the plaintiffs a boundary by acquiescence.  OPINION HOLDS: Assuming the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence at trial, the evidence did not prejudice the defendants.  Even disregarding this evidence, substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs established a boundary by acquiescence.    

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Linnea M.N. Nichol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude termination was warranted under Iowa Code section 600A.8(9) (2018), and we agree with the district court’s conclusion that termination of the father’s parental rights to the children was in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory grounds for termination and contending the juvenile court should have applied the statutory exception under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(a) (2019) to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three children, contending the State failed to prove the children could not be returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She disputes some of the statutory grounds relied upon by the juvenile court, maintains termination is not in the child’s best interests, argues she should be given more time to work toward reunification, and challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her request to modify disposition to place the child with the maternal grandmother.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved a ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence.  Termination is in the child’s best interest.  Additional time for the mother to work toward unification is not warranted.  And the mother no longer has standing to appeal the denial of the motion on placement.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is sufficient evidence in the record that the child cannot be returned to the mother, termination is in the child’s best interests to give the child stability, and custody of the child with her father does not militate against termination.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.