2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J. (4 pages)

            Michael Gill appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery in the second degree.  On appeal, he asserts his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruct on second-degree robbery that did not include the assault element.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Gill has not established prejudice and, therefore, his ineffective-assistance claim fails. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., May, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Arnold Grice appeals from the denial of his second application for postconviction relief following his 2007 convictions. Grice raises three issues that he raised to the second PCR court: that his first PCR counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issues his trial counsel was ineffective (1) for not adequately explaining the strength of the evidence against him, which led him to reject a favorable plea agreement, and (2) for not raising a conflict-of-interest issue, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to further investigate the DNA evidence against him.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered each of Grice’s claims, we affirm the PCR court’s denial of Grice’s claims without further opinion. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  Dissent by Vogel, C.J.  (19 pages)

            The Department of Human Services (DHS) appeals district court’s ruling on judicial review, which determined the DHS violated Terri Endress’s procedural due process rights and exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating administrative rules concerning recoupment of Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) overpayments, and the administrative rules concerning recoupment are unconstitutionally vague.  Terri Endress cross-appeals the denial of her request for attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The DHS violated Endress’s right to procedural due process by seeking recoupment of CCAP payments without providing adequate notice.  The notice provided to Endress concerning recoupment of the CCAP payments made during the appeal process was constitutionally deficient, and we affirm on this basis.  Accordingly, we need not address the other grounds on which the district court granted Endress’s petition for judicial review or Endress’s argument concerning unjust enrichment.  II. Although Endress appealed the DHS’s assessment of CCAP overpayments, she did not challenge the existence of a CCAP overpayment under the DHS’s rules and the amount of that overpayment.  Rather, the DHS’s promulgation of administrative rules concerning overpayment and the procedural due process it afforded Endress were at issue.  Because the agency did not adjudicate the matter on appeal, its role was not primarily adjudicative.  We reverse the district court’s determination that Endress is not entitled to attorney fees under Iowa Code section 625.29 (2018) and remand to the district court to determine an appropriate award.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I do not believe the notice from DHS to Endress violated her right to procedural due process.  I also believe Endress cannot recover attorney fees because the department’s actions were primarily adjudicative.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Rustin T. Davenport, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            Tricia Hannegrefs appeals her conviction for driving while barred, arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to object to jury instruction lacking State’s burden of disproving her compulsion defense.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we conclude competent counsel would have objected to the defective instruction and Hannegrefs suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s deficiency, we reverse Hannegrefs’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Mark J. Eveloff, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (15 pages)

            In an interlocutory appeal, Andres Lechuga challenges the district court decision granting summary judgment to O & J Enterprises, LLC (O & J) in his tort action.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there are genuine issues of material fact on the questions of whether O & J had a subcontractor agreement with Garcia Grain Structures, LLC (Garcia Grain), or whether Ezekiel Garcia was O & J’s employee and whether O & J and Garcia or Garcia Grain had a principal-agent relationship.  On these issues we reverse the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to O & J and remand for further proceedings.  We find the district court properly granted summary judgment to O & J on the issue of whether O & J was in a joint venture with Mid-States Millwright & Builders, Inc. and Garcia or Garcia Grain, and we affirm on this issue.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Crystal S. Cronk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (6 pages)

            DrewAnn Sorensen appeals an order granting Damian Hesseltine physical care of the parties’ minor child and awarding him the associated dependent-tax exemption.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s decree, and we decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin A. Parker, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (6 pages)

            Gregg Quigley appeals his conviction for theft in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find Quigley’s claims of ineffective assistance by defense counsel during his guilty plea proceeding should be preserved for possible postconviction proceedings.  We find the court did not abuse its discretion in setting the amount of restitution in the sentencing order.  We affirm Quigley’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Paul B. Ahlers, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 pages)

            A defendant appeals from his sentence for operating while intoxicated, second offense.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly exercised its discretion when sentencing the defendant.  We affirm the defendant’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Mark Scholtes appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of plea and postconviction counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Because postconviction counsel raised and obtained a ruling on the precise issue Scholtes now raises, he could not have been ineffective.  We also conclude plea counsel was not ineffective in his advice about the possibility of consecutive sentences.  Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s denial of Scholtes’ postconvicton-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their daughter, S.A., who was born in December 2015.  The juvenile court terminated both the mother’s and the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2018).  Both parents argue the State failed to prove the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence.  The mother also argues that the court should have granted a six-month deferment instead of termination.    OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of both the mother’s and father’s parental rights.  The juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request for a six-month deferral.  We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            A grandmother appeals the juvenile court order denying her petition to intervene in child-welfare cases involving four children.  OPINION HOLDS: The grandmother’s decision to intervene was untimely for intervention in the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings.  She still had an interest as an intervenor in the post-termination phase of proceedings.  But given concerns about her criminal history and protective capacity concerning the children’s father, we find no error in the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to intervene. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their minor child, contending (1) the record lacks clear and convincing evidence to support the ground for termination cited by the juvenile court; (2) termination is not in the child’s best interests; and (3) the juvenile court should have declined to terminate their parental rights based on the closeness of the parent-child bonds.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude reunification with either parent is not an option.  Given the father’s violent propensities and both parents’ continued drug use, termination is in the child’s best interests.  Additionally, the juvenile court acted appropriately in declining to invoke the parent-child bond exception to termination.  Accordingly, we affirm the termination of the parents’ rights to the child.