2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination was appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Perry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the statutory grounds for termination where the mother has a severe substance-abuse problem and was unable to maintain sobriety throughout the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings.  She is unable to resume custody of the children at this time.  It is also in the children’s best interests to terminate her parental rights; the closeness of their bond should not prevent termination.  And, based on the mother’s history, an extension of time is not warranted.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court decision terminating her parental rights.  The mother contends the State failed to show the child could not be returned to her and termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to one child.  They contend the State failed to show by clear and convincing evidence the statutory grounds for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interests.  They ask the court to find termination would be detrimental to the child because of their parent-child bond.  OPINION HOLDS: The State showed by clear and convincing evidence the statutory ground for termination and that termination is in the child’s best interests.  We find the termination will not be detrimental to the child because of the parent-child bond. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Phillip T. Tabor, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  (4 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the juvenile court decision terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Grounds for termination exist and the parents failed to meet their burden that guardianship is in the child’s best interests such that termination of their parental rights should be avoided.

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, P.M.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the termination, termination is in the child’s best interests, and the mother has not shown termination would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Joseph McCarville, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s adjudicatory and dispositional orders in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father failed to preserve error on his claims.  We affirm the court’s adjudicatory and dispositional orders.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children, contending (1) termination is not in the children’s best interests due to the closeness of the parent-child bond, (2) the State failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification, and (3) termination was premature because the youngest child’s father was not identified or offered services.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mary E. Chicchelly (summary judgment) and Patrick R. Grady (foreclosure), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (14 pages)

            Sheree Smith-Martinez and Michael Martinez appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wilmington in a mortgage-foreclosure action.  OPINION HOLDS: The court had both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over Wilmington, as assignee from Wells Fargo, which initially petitioned for foreclosure.  We also find Wilmington was not required to file the note and mortgage documents with the foreclosure petition.  The court did not abuse its discretion by considering the motion for summary judgment by nonoral submission.  There are no genuine issues of material fact and summary judgment was therefore appropriate.  Finally, we find the court’s order requiring the Martinezes to post a supersedeas bond was within the court’s authority and the amount was not excessive.  We deny the request for appellate attorney’s fees.  Costs on appeal are assessed one-half to Sheree Smith-Martinez and one-half to Michael Martinez.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Tom Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (15 pages)

            Jessie Jones appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his conviction of sexual abuse in the second degree.  Jones claims the PCR court abused its discretion in denying his application for the appointment of an expert to testify in his PCR hearing regarding the standard of professional conduct for attorneys.  Additionally, Jones argues his PCR application should have been granted because his trial counsel breached an essential duty by (1) failing to call an expert to emphasize the lack of rape-kit evidence; (2) failing to contest evidence of Jones’s DNA found on the complaining witness’s “wrong” underwear or explain the limitations to DNA evidence; (3) failing to challenge whether the jury panel was made up of a fair cross section of the community; (4) wrongly advising Jones regarding possible impeachment based on his prior convictions and, as a result, wrongly advising Jones not to testify in his own defense.  He asks that we consider the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s errors.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the PCR court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’s request for the appointment of another attorney to act as a legal expert regarding his claims of ineffective assistance and because Jones has not established any of his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we affirm the denial of his application for PCR.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Rustin T. Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            James Neuman appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit.  OPINION HOLDS: Although we could summarily dismiss the appeal based on Neuman’s violations of our appellate rules, we decline to do so.  We agree with the district court’s well-reasoned analysis and disposition of the case and affirm without further opinion, noting that we cannot grant Neuman the relief he requests even if he succeeded on appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (16 pages)

            Devon Lukinich appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief (PCR) application.  He argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to have a ballistics expert testify; (2) failing to object when the prosecutor improperly stated during closing arguments that BB guns are dangerous weapons “under the law”; (3) failing to object to instructions and arguments that the shotguns stolen during the robberies met the “dangerous weapon” requirement; and (4) failing to present an expert witness at sentencing regarding Lukinich’s brain maturity.  OPINION HOLDS:  Trial counsel was not ineffective. No evidence suggests a different ballistics expert’s testimony would be meaningfully different from the testimony offered by the State’s expert.  No prejudice resulted from failing to object to the prosecutor’s statements during closing arguments.  Trial counsel did not breach an essential duty by failing to object to the shotgun-related jury instructions.  Trial counsel did not breach an essential duty by failing to hire a brain maturity expert witness because Lukinich was not a juvenile at the time the robberies occurred.  We affirm.