2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the juvenile court decision terminating their parental rights.  They independently claim the evidence was insufficient to support termination, the court should have granted additional time for them to resolve their issues, and exceptions to termination apply.  OPINION HOLDS: We find sufficient evidence supports the termination, additional time is not warranted, and no exceptions preclude termination.  We affirm.

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

            A father appeals the order terminating his parental rights to one child.  He contends the State did not prove statutory grounds for termination, reasonable efforts to reunify, or that termination is in the child’s best interests.  He also alleges the court should have denied the petition based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  In the alternative, he asks to delay permanency for six months.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the conclusions of the juvenile court—the father admitted he was not in a position to resume care of the child, and his remaining arguments fail.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights. 

            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.  (5 pages)

            The parents of two minor children separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, arguing the State failed to prove the grounds for removal cited by the district court and termination was not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm the district court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights to the two children, as well as the termination of the father’s parental rights to the older child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott D. Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights.  We find the services provided by the State were reasonable under the circumstances of the case.  Also, we find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the children’s best interests.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the mother’s parental rights.

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

            The mother appeals the juvenile court order terminating parental rights to her child, and the denial of her motion for new trial.  The juvenile court terminated the mother’s rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (h) (2018) in March 2019.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record, we conclude that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest.  We also hold that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s motion for new trial.  We affirm the juvenile court’s decision terminating the mother’s 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 May, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by May, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination was proper under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interests.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, C.G., born in June 2016.  The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) and (h) (2018).  He maintains the State failed to prove the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and a permissive factor weighs against severing the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the statutory grounds for termination have been proved by clear and convincing evidence, termination is in C.G.’s best interests, and no permissive factor weighs against severing the parent-child relationship, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Spencer Pierce appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to take several actions: (1) file a motion to suppress evidence from the search of a residence; (2) properly argue the motion to suppress evidence from the search of a vehicle; (3) investigate a confidential informant; and (4) prepare for trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Pierce has not shown prejudice by proving, but for counsel’s claimed errors, he would have refused the plea bargain and proceeded to trial.  Furthermore, he has not proven: (1) the warrant to search the residence was impermissibly tainted by evidence from an illegal search and seizure or from inaccuracies in the application; (2) the warrant to search the vehicle was improperly rejected or the vehicle would not run properly with the evidence in place; (3) evidence from the confidential informant was beneficial to him; or (4) a lack of preparation for trial by counsel caused him to plead guilty.  Therefore, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Bower, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Eric Miller appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  He asserts he has raised a proper gateway claim of actual innocence to survive summary judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Iowa does not recognize a gateway claim of actual innocence.  Even if we were to recognize a gateway claim, Miller has not shown a constitutional error at trial that is supported with new reliable evidence to establish, more likely than not, no reasonable juror would have convicted him. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (4 pages)

            Dewberry appeals the denial of his second postconviction-relief (PCR) application.  He claims he was wrongly denied a full PCR hearing to demonstrate his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present an expert to testify on whether the BB gun he used during the incident was a dangerous weapon under Iowa Code section 711.2 (2011).  OPINION HOLDS: Because Dewberry was deprived of the opportunity to prove his actual-innocence claim, we remand the case to the PCR court where a full evidentiary hearing may be held.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, William C. Ostlund, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            Gary Schenkelberg appeals the district court’s order denying his petition to modify the parties’ dissolution decree to decrease his spousal support obligation to Julianne Schenkelberg.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that Gary failed to carry his burden of proving a substantial change not in the contemplation of the supreme court, and we affirm the denial of his modification petition.