2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Gamble, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Jean Beloved appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Beloved cannot establish prejudice from any of the alleged breaches in trial counsel’s conduct, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Lori Mathes appeals an order dismissing her criminal charges but requiring her to reimburse the State for her court-appointed attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Mathes does not have the right of appeal from an order dismissing the criminal charge against her and she does not claim the district court acted beyond its authority, we dismiss her appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell and Robert B. Hanson, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Per Curiam Opinion.  (33 pages)

            A defendant appeals her convictions for theft by deception and tampering with a witness.  She raises several contentions.  OPINION HOLDS: The verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence.  But the district court abused its discretion in admitting an irrelevant employee handbook that contained a broad and misleading definition of theft.  We reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial without the irrelevant evidence.  PARTIAL CONCURRENCE, PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: The State did not show substantial evidence to support the amount stolen was sufficient for first-degree theft, only second-degree theft.  I would remand for retrial only on second-degree theft by deception. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen and Henry W. Latham II, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Quayshan Moore appeals following a jury trial that resulted in convictions for possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, possession of a firearm by a domestic violence offender, carrying weapons, interference with official acts, and assault causing bodily injury.  Moore challenges the sentences imposed and claims trial counsel was ineffective in stipulating that he was a prohibited person and in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of his intent to deliver cocaine.  OPINION HOLDS: The court stated adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.  The record is not sufficient to address his ineffectiveness claim as to the stipulation.  Because there is substantial evidence from which the jury could find an intent to deliver, Moore cannot show he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to challenge evidence of intent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Terry R. Rickers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (4 pages)

            Mary DeHaai seeks reversal of the district court decision dismissing her quiet-title claim against the City of Monroe and denial of her motion for leave to amend.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (10 pages)

            The plaintiffs, Tim Kruse and Russell Bries, who do business as Kruse “N” Bries Contruction, were hired by Don and Molly Krumwiede to build and finish the Krumwiede’s new home.  The plaintiffs filed suit against the Krumwiedes for breach of contract and promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment, maintaining they performed construction services pursuant to written and verbal contracts and the Krumwiedes failed to compensate them fully.  The district court denied the plaintiffs’ claim, finding they failed to prove their case.  On appeal, the plaintiffs claim the district court “was incorrect in the conclusions of law necessary for plaintiffs to establish their cause of action.”  OPINION HOLDS: Because Kruse and Bries did not meet their burden to prove the Krumwiedes breached the contract, and because a claim of breach of implied contract cannot coexist with a claimed breach of express contract on the same subject matter, we affirm the district court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ suit.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A CORRECTED SENTENCING ORDER.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (6 pages)

            Cheryl Wanchanic appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of first-degree robbery and the sentence imposed.  He contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a mistrial.  He further challenges the district court’s order assessing appellate attorney fees against him unless he filed a request for a hearing on his reasonable ability to pay.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Wanchanic’s conviction but preserve his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.  We affirm his sentence in part, but vacate the portion of the sentencing order requiring Wanchanic to affirmatively request a reasonable-ability-to-pay hearing.  We remand for the entry of a corrected sentencing order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Javier Benitez Pizarro appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  In the underlying case, Benitez Pizarro entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.  Here, as he did in front of the PCR court, Benitez Pizarro maintains his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to (1) effectively plea bargain, (2) inform him of the immigration consequences associated with his plea deal, (3) adequately advocate on Benitez Pizarro’s behalf at sentencing, and (4) prepare Benitez Pizarro for his right of allocution at sentencing.  In the alternative, if we do not find he met his burden of establishing Strickland prejudice, Benitez Pizarro asks that we adopt a new standard for prejudice under the Iowa Constitution and consider his claims under that standard.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Benitez Pizarro has not met his burden to establish that trial counsel breached any essential duties in their representation of him, he cannot establish his claims of ineffective assistance and his new proposed new standard of prejudice is inapposite.  We affirm the denial of his application for PCR.    

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.  Opinion by Vogel, C.J.  (7 pages)

            Prince Mellish appeals his conviction and sentence for theft in the third degree.  He argues his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to sign a plea agreement that incorrectly states the law and for failing to correctly explain how his guilty plea would affect his immigration status.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the plea agreement correctly states he has an obligation to understand his immigration status and no prejudice resulted from his counsel’s claimed failure to investigate the divisibility of his theft charge.  Therefore, we affirm.         

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Timothy J. Finn, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.  Decided by Vogel, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (22 pages)

            Colette Friest appeals and Brent Friest cross-appeals various provisions of the district court’s decree dissolving their twenty-one-year marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that “[t]his is an extremely complicated case.”  We find the district court’s decree should be affirmed as modified in various respects as set out in this opinion, resulting in an increase of the equalization payment to Collette.  We further find Brent’s personal farm income for purposes of calculating his child-support obligation should be increased, and we remand the issue back to the district court to recalculate Brent’s child-support obligation consistent with this opinion.  The district court shall order a schedule of payments for the increased equalization payment that is fair and equitable to the parties.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Martha L. Mertz, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vogel, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J. (5 pages)

            Asa South appeals the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of third-degree sexual abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: The trial court acted within its discretion in denying evidence concerning an allegedly false claim of sexual abuse made by the complaining witness ten years earlier because South failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claim was false.  His trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the model jury instruction concerning his out-of-court statements.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (10 pages)

            Tamra Moeller appeals the economic provisions in the parties’ dissolution decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the parties’ premarital agreement is not enforceable because Galyn Moeller did not provide accurate information on his financial disclosure form.  The district court made alternative findings concerning the division of the parties’ property if the premarital agreement was found to be unenforceable, and we find this division is equitable.  We also affirm the court’s decision not to award spousal support to Tamra and to order Galyn to pay part of her trial attorney fees.  We do not award any appellate attorney fees.  We affirm the decision of the district court, although we modify it to find the parties’ premarital agreement is not enforceable.