November 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Juan Alberto Flores appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Flores has failed to show his trial counsel breached a duty by allowing him to plead guilty without being properly advised about the mandatory minimum sentence where counsel moved in arrest of judgment on that basis, which Flores withdrew.  Counsel’s failure breached a duty in failing to ensure Flores was properly advised regarding his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, but he is unable to show prejudice given the evidence against him.  Finally, Flores’s counsel had no duty to inform Flores regarding a possible future change to the robbery statute.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (15 pages)

            Leslie Hospitality Consulting LLC (Leslie Hospitality) contracted with Invision Architecture, Ltd. (Invision) to provide design services on an hourly basis for redevelopment and renovation of a downtown Waterloo hotel and convention center.  After not being paid, Invision sued Leslie Hospitality for breach of contract.  Leslie Hospitality claimed there was no contract.  After a bench trial, the district court determined there was a contract and Leslie Hospitality breached it.  The court entered judgment for Invision and against Leslie Hospitality in the amount of $86,327.50.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the evidence we agree there was a contract and a breach, but we remand for an order reducing the judgment by $7415.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Elisabeth Reynoldson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (17 pages)

            A son and his wife appeal the district court order allowing his mother to recover her down payments on their home, contending the payments were gifts with no expectation of repayment.  They argue gift letters are enforceable contracts that show the mother intended to give them the payments as unconditional gifts.  They also argue the parol evidence rule precludes consideration of extrinsic proof of a prior oral agreement to impose a condition on the gifts.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is no evidence of consideration to support the gift letters, we find the elements of a contract have not been met, and thus the gift letters are not enforceable.  We also find the parol evidence rule does not apply to gift letters, so extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine whether the gifts came with conditions.  Upon our de novo review, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (14 pages)

            Heath Church appeals his convictions for burglary in the first degree, assault causing bodily injury, and stalking, arguing the district court erred in admitting evidence of his prior bad acts, denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, and excluding certain impeachment evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: It was within the district court’s discretion to admit prior bad acts evidence as its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, the record contains substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding impeachment evidence. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court decision denying her request for modification of physical care, visitation, and transportation expenses.  Both parties seek attorney fees for this appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the district court on the issue of physical care and transportation expenses but modify the summer visitation schedule.  We deny the requests for appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (11 pages)

            Armand Rollins appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(2)(b).  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion.  Rollins’s repeated signals that he would plead guilty constituted “good cause” for a one-day delay in bringing him to trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the private termination of his parental rights, asserting it is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the father’s parental rights are in the child’s best interest.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Bower, C.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (5 pages)

            Thomas Nichols appeals the denial of his application to amend a qualified domestic relations order.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the denial of Thomas’s application to be in accord with the decretal court’s intent and therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his children.  He contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and the court erred in denying his motion to reconsider.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (10 pages)

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

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother, L.W., concedes the State met its burden on the first three elements of Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020) but argues it failed to meet its burden regarding the remaining element, that D.G. could not be returned to her care at the time of the termination hearing.  OPINION HOLDS: Based upon our de novo review, we find the State established by clear and convincing evidence that the child could not be returned to L.W.’s care and her parental rights should be terminated.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  Dissent by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the grounds for termination under section 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2019) because the children cannot be returned to the mother’s care without exposing the children to harm.  The children’s best interests require terminating the mother’s parental rights, and none of the circumstances set forth in section 232.116(3) exist.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because the mother made marked improvements in her compliance with department expectations notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic, I would reverse the termination decision and remand for further proceedings.