August 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court was correct in finding statutory grounds for termination satisfied and termination to be in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Jennifer A. Benson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            Jessica and Tony appeal the termination of their parental rights to three children.  Tony contends the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the termination trial.  Jessica contends the State failed to prove the statutory grounds, the Department of Human Services failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and giving her more time for reunification was in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the court denying the motion to continue.  The State proved the statutory ground for termination under one of the four grounds the juvenile court found and proved it made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.  Jessica’s substance-abuse issues substantially impaired her ability to respond adequately to the offered services.  Finally, because of her ongoing substance-abuse impairment, an extension of the time for reunification would not have been in the children’s best interests.  We affirm as to both appeals. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to L.W., her infant child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights under section 232.116(1)(h) (2020).  An additional six months will not resolve the need for removal from parental care.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monroe County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (7 pages)

The State filed a petition alleging eight-year-old N.C. is a child in need of assistance (CINA), pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(b), (d), and (p) (2020), which the juvenile court dismissed following a hearing.  On appeal, the State and the child’s guardian ad litem challenge the juvenile court’s conclusions that there is not clear and convincing evidence N.C. was sexually abused by father or is imminently likely to be sexually abused by him.  The State also maintains there is clear and convincing evidence to find the father physically abused or neglected N.C. or is imminently likely to abuse or neglect her.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s dismissal of the CINA petition as to section 232.2(6)(b) and (p).  Because we determine N.C. is a child in need of assistance pursuant to section 232.2(6)(d), we reverse the court’s dismissal of the petition under that ground. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda L. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Markus Harding appeals from his convictions of first-degree burglary, domestic abuse assault while using or displaying a dangerous weapon, false imprisonment, and fourth-degree theft.  Harding contends the district court erred in applying the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception to the Confrontation Clause to allow admission of hearsay statements made by the victim.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Thanh Dao appeals from the dismissal of his fourth application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the summary dismissal of Dao’s postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (4 pages)

            Vincent Duncan appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because he failed to establish his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Colleen Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (9 pages)

            Warren Purvis appeals from the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief following his convictions of sexual abuse in the first degree, willful injury resulting in serious injury, and domestic abuse assault impeding breathing or circulation of blood causing bodily injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Purvis has failed to prove that trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty or that Purvis suffered constitutional prejudice because (1) counsel did not obtain the services of an expert and (2) counsel declined to strike a juror who knew the victim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Napoleon Mbonyunkiza appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  Mbonyunkiza alleges his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly inform him of all the adverse immigration consequences of pleading guilty.  He also argues his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to properly inform him of his right to consular access prior to his guilty plea and now claims on appeal that that his PCR counsel was ineffective in not presenting evidence to establish how Mbonyunkiza could have benefitted from such access to the Rwandan consulate.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Mbonyunkiza has not proved his claims of ineffective assistance by his trial and PCR counsel, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Brad McCall, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            June Fitzpatrick appeals the district court decision denying her request to declare the parties’ dissolution decree was void.  OPINION HOLDS: June’s claims of extrinsic fraud lacked credibility.  Her claims of intrinsic fraud, that her former spouse made misrepresentations during the dissolution proceedings, are not sufficient grounds to declare the decree was void.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Joseph Waigand appeals the order setting victim restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the district court did not err in setting the amount of victim restitution and Waigand’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert a right to a jury trial or equitable estoppel, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Paul G. Crawford and Steven P. Van Marel, District Associate Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Jeffrey Happe was convicted of harassment in the third degree.  He challenges his conviction, urging that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him.  He also alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a separation-of-powers argument because he was convicted for breaking a “de facto, nonjudicial protective order.”  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find sufficient evidence in the record to convict Happe, we affirm.  We also find his ineffective assistance claim without merit because his counsel had no duty to raise a separation-of-powers argument as Happe was not charged for violating a protective order.