March 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (14 pages)

            Albert Johnson appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  He makes several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.  OPINION HOLDS: Trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to police testimony outside the scope of the minutes of evidence, a joint-criminal-conduct jury instruction, and multiple improprieties allegedly committed by the State during closing arguments.  Appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to argue the speedy-trial waiver was involuntary because no duty was breached.  PCR claims related to failure to develop a record are unsuccessful because of Johnson’s failure to sufficiently identify error for this court to review and claims regarding violations of the rules of professional conduct fail because no prejudice has resulted.  Johnson presented no sufficient cause for failing to raise prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal.  Therefore, we need not reach the merits of the prosecutorial-misconduct claims. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (13 pages)

            We must decide whether a subrogation agreement was enforceable, whether a company and its principals waived certain defenses, and whether a director of the company breached a fiduciary duty.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the subrogation agreement was valid under the basic tenets of subrogation law, the waivers were enforceable, and Adam Koppes made decisions in the appellants’ best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            Hayes Baker III appeals the denial of his fourth postconviction-relief application (PCR) on statute-of-limitation grounds.  He argues new evidence establishes an actual-innocence claim to overcome the statute-of-limitations defense.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude a gateway actual-innocence exception does not apply here.  Because Baker filed this fourth PCR application more than three years after procedendo issued, it is barred by the statute of limitations. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, John J. Bauercamper, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (8 pages)

            Alexander Blaess challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause.  OPINION HOLDS: We find a substantial basis existed for concluding drugs, drug paraphernalia, or evidence of drug trafficking would be found in Blaess’s home at the time the warrant was issued and affirm the denial of Blaess’s motion to suppress. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Terry Rickers, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor, Mullins, May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  Special Concurrence by May, J.  Partial Dissent by Greer, J.  (30 pages)

            Carrie Carre appeals from her convictions for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and sponsoring a gathering where controlled substances are used.  A police officer entered Carre’s home with boyfriend David Putz to locate a juvenile he was told would be in their home.  Carre appeals the suppression ruling finding the officer’s entry did not violate her constitutional rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State failed to show a recognized exception to the warrant requirement justified the entry, we reverse the suppression ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I accept the district court’s conclusion concerning the officer’s motivation for entering the home.  Still, I agree we must reverse because (1) Officer Hansen entered the home without a warrant and (2) the State failed to prove any recognized exception to the warrant requirement.  PARTIAL DISSENTS ASSERTS: While I concur with the majority that there was not probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances to support the warrantless entry, I believe the State has shown the officer’s actions fall under the community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.  I would affirm the district court’s ruling on that issue.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Terry Rickers, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor, Mullins, May, and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  Special Concurrence by May, J.  Partial Dissent by Greer, J.  (20 pages)

            David Putz appeals from his convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and sponsoring a gathering where controlled substances are used.  A police officer entered Putz’s home with girlfriend Carrie Carre to locate a juvenile he was told would be in their home.  Putz appeals the suppression ruling finding the officer’s entry did not violate his constitutional rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State failed to show a recognized exception to the warrant requirement justified the entry, we reverse the suppression ruling and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I specially concur for the reasons explained in my special concurrence in State v. Carre, No. 18-1584, 2020 WL _______ (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020), also filed today.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: For the reasons stated in my partial dissent in State v. Carre, No. 18-1564, 2020 WL ____ (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020), also filed today, I would find the officer’s warrantless entry into the home falls under the community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Andrew B. Chappell, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (14 pages)

            Mariana Lesnic appeals her conviction, sentence, and judgment following a jury trial and verdict.  On appeal, Lesnic alleges the district court erred by (1) failing to suspend proceedings and order another competency evaluation under Iowa Code chapter 812 (2018); (2) concluding Lesnic was competent to represent herself; and (3) failing to determine Lesnic’s reasonable ability to pay restitution. OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err by finding Lesnic was competent to stand trial or competent to represent herself.  We vacate the part of the sentencing order dealing with restitution and remand the case to the trial court for completion of a final restitution order and a subsequent determination of Lesnic’s reasonable ability to pay.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (13 pages)

            Benskin, Inc. (Benskin) appeals the district court decision dismissing its action against West Bank.  The court found Benskin’s claims of breach of contract and fraud were barred by the statute of limitations and its claim of slander of title failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  OPINION HOLDS: Benskin’s petition adequately alleged the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a response to West Bank’s statute of limitations defense to make dismissal of the claims of breach of contract and fraud improper.  Also, the petition adequately apprised West Bank of the claim of slander of title, making dismissal of this count for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted improper as well.  We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 pages)

            Gregory Winter appeals his conviction for driving while revoked.  OPINION HOLDS: Counsel was not ineffective in allowing Winter to plead guilty because his plea was supported by a factual basis.  Winter’s claim alleging he was coerced into pleading guilty is preserved for future postconviction-relief proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

            Catherine Nimely appeals her conviction and sentence following her guilty plea to assault causing bodily injury, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.  Nimely claims that her counsel improperly allowed her to plead guilty when there was an insufficient factual basis to support her plea.  OPINION HOLDS: We find a sufficient factual basis and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  WRIT SUSTAINED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (9 pages)

            The Story County Board of Adjustment (Board) appeals district court orders sustaining a writ of certiorari, annulling previous proceedings before the Board, and remanding the matter to the Board.  The Board argues the district court erred in finding the Board failed to substantially comply with the requirement to make written findings of fact and legal conclusions.  OPINION HOLDS: Our review of the record does not reveal the factual basis upon which the Board relied in granting the conditional use permit.  Accordingly, the Board did not comply with the ordinance requiring written findings of fact.  Thus, the writ for certiorari is sustained. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            James Christensen appeals the district court’s denial of his second application for postconviction relief (PCR).  Christensen argues he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude this evidence is merely cumulative and impeaching and would not have changed the result of the trial.  We affirm the denial of his second PCR application.