Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1191
View Summary for Case No. 18-1191
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ. Opinion by Vogel, C.J. (6 pages)
Rodney Cockhren appeals his conviction and sentence after he entered into an Alford plea for second-degree burglary. He claims his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to enter into the Alford plea despite a lack of factual basis for the plea. OPINION HOLDS: We find Cockhren may not rely on the additional minutes of evidence filed after he appealed and his counsel was not ineffective.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1197
View Summary for Case No. 18-1197
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Terry R. Rickers, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J. Opinion by Mahan, S.J. (3 pages)
Michael Croft Jr. appeals from his conviction for theft in the fourth degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1(1) and 714.2(4) (2018), contending there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding on the element of identity. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1270
View Summary for Case No. 18-1270
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, J. (4 pages)
Clarence Bryant appeals the denial of his motion to strike court costs arguing Iowa Code section 822.2(1) (2018) prohibits assessment of a filing fee on applications for postconviction relief. OPINION HOLDS: Although section 822.2(1) allows initiation of a postconviction action without requiring the applicant to first pay a filing fee, the filing fee is recoverable in the event that the PCR applicant is unsuccessful in securing relief. Accordingly, we affirm.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1308
View Summary for Case No. 18-1308
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (11 pages)
Matthew Nevins challenges the physical-care, visitation, child-support, and attorney-fees provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Kelsey Nevins. Matthew maintains the parties’ children should have been placed in his physical care or, alternatively, he and Kelsey should share joint physical care. Additionally, he challenges the district court’s determination of each party’s income for the purposes of calculating child support and claims the court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $2000 of Kelsey’s attorney fees. On appeal, Kelsey asks that we affirm the district court’s decree and award her an additional $16,982.50 in appellate attorney fees. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s decision to place the parties’ children in Kelsey’s physical care, but we adjust the parenting-time schedule to give Matthew an additional overnight time with the children each week. As a result of the change in parenting time, we remand to the district court to determine if the extraordinary visitation credit should be applied to Matthew’s child-support obligation. We affirm the district court’s award of $2000 of attorney fees to Kelsey and award Kelsey $2000 in appellate attorney fees.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1479
View Summary for Case No. 18-1479
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tom Reidel, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (5 pages)
Cody Deneve appeals his guilty plea to possession of heroin with intent to deliver, as a habitual offender, contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel. OPINION HOLDS: We find the record inadequate to decide whether Deneve was prejudiced. We therefore affirm his conviction but preserve his ineffective-assistance claim for postconviction-relief proceedings.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1510
View Summary for Case No. 18-1510
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Per Curiam. (7 pages)
Derek Westwater appeals his conviction for harassment in the first degree. OPINION HOLDS: We find Westwater failed to show he received ineffective assistance because defense counsel permitted him to plead guilty to a count where there was not a factual basis, as there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea. We affirm Westwater’s conviction.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1644
View Summary for Case No. 18-1644
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Bower, J. (8 pages)
G.R. appeals the juvenile court decision finding he committed the delinquent act of sexual abuse in the second degree. OPINION HOLDS: We find the court did not abuse its discretion in denying G.R.’s request for a consent decree or in determining G.R. should be required to register as a sex offender. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1690
View Summary for Case No. 18-1690
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, James C. Ellefson, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Potterfield, P.J. (10 pages)
Nicole Seward appeals the modification of the visitation and child support provisions of her dissolution decree with Adam Seward. She argues the district court improperly acted sua sponte by modifying the visitation provision and the child support provision of the decree because Adam’s petition for modification only requested modification of the physical care provision. In the event the court acted properly, Nicole argues Adam failed to show a change in circumstance warranting modification of the visitation provision. She also claims the district court erred in denying her request for attorney fees. OPINION HOLDS: The parties were aware visitation and child support were at issue as evidenced by their trial testimony. As a result, the court’s modification of visitation and child support was not improper. There was a change in circumstance warranting modification of the visitation provision and the modification was in the children’s best interests. The district court’s modification of the child support provision was equitable to all parties. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney fees.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-1926
View Summary for Case No. 18-1926
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover Grinde, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Carr, S.J. Opinion by Carr, S.J. (5 pages)
Kabra Grabill appeals from the child visitation provisions of her decree with Tyler Swift. She asserts the district court should have granted her additional visitation with their child, K.S. OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court should not have granted Swift discretion to decide visitation with Grabill. Therefore, we reverse that part of the order and remand for entry of an order for definite visitation with Grabill.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 18-2045
View Summary for Case No. 18-2045
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J. (6 pages)
The State appeals an order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding returning custody of a child to her mother and scheduling the return of a second child within forty-five days of the order, arguing (1) both children would be subject to harm if returned and (2) the juvenile court should have changed the permanency goal to termination of the mother’s parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order in all respects except that we reverse that portion of the order requiring immediate reunification of the youngest child with the mother and reunification of the second child with the mother within forty-five days. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 19-0154
View Summary for Case No. 19-0154
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J. (7 pages)
A mother appeals removal and adjudication orders involving her child, raising claims that the district court erroneously required participation in pre-adjudication services and improperly relied on her refusal to take a drug test in adjudicating the child in need of assistance. She also asserts the statutory grounds for adjudication cited by the district court were not satisfied. OPINION HOLDS: The district court acted appropriately in basing the temporary removal order on the mother’s refusal to take the test requested by the child protection worker. The court also cited other factors to support adjudication of the child as a child in need of assistance. For that reason, the court’s reliance on the compelled drug-testing portion of the removal order does not require reversal of the adjudicatory order. As for the statutory grounds cited in support of adjudication, we reverse the adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b) (2018) and affirm the adjudication under section 232.2(6)(c)(2) and section 232.2(6)(n).
Filed May 01, 2019
View Opinion No. 19-0196
View Summary for Case No. 19-0196
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J. (6 pages)
Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their two minor children, challenging the grounds of the district court’s decision and arguing that termination was not in the children’s best interests. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of parental rights to the children.