September 2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Dissent by May, J.  (12 pages)

            Daniel Penticoff appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his postconviction-relief application as time-barred.  Penticoff argues his freestanding actual-innocence claim, based on Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2018), falls under the “ground of fact or law” exception to the three-year limitations period of Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018).  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Penticoff’s actual-innocence claim is a ground of law that Penticoff could not have raised within the limitations period.  We do not reach the merits of his actual-innocence claim but remand for further proceedings.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Penticoff’s claims are barred by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018) because (1) Penticoff failed to demonstrate his claims are based a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the three years after he was sentenced; and (2) Penticoff failed to file his application within those three years.  The district court was right to dismiss Penticoff’s application.  I respectfully dissent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (16 pages)

            The defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of failure to comply with sex-offender-registry requirements.  OPINION HOLDS: No issue raised in either counsel’s brief or the defendant’s pro se briefing is meritorious.  So we affirm the convictions. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (5 pages)

            Dave Rutledge appeals the amount of restitution imposed in his supplemental restitution order.  OPINION HOLDS: Rutledge may appeal from his supplemental restitution order.  However, the civil statute of limitations does not apply to his restitution order, and substantial evidence supports the amount of victim restitution imposed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Arthur Poyner appeals following the summary disposition of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no cause for reversal on the issues properly presented for our review, we affirm the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (13 pages)

            Angela Mrla appeals from the property division decree entered after trial on remand from this court.  She challenges the decree in many respects.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no merit to her arguments, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

Brianna Havemann appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress, contending the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for further investigation of the presence of drugs in her vehicle.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s suppression ruling and Havemann’s judgment and sentence for possession of marijuana.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Tod Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            Richard Davis appeals his drug conviction, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Davis’s motion to suppress and his conviction.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Chad A. Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

            Steven Krug appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Amy Krug.  He challenges the court’s decision to give Amy sole legal custody and physical care of the parties’ minor child, K.K.  He argues they should share joint legal custody and K.K. should be placed in his physical care.  He also challenges the court’s award of the marital home to Amy and, after providing no evidence of his own regarding the value of the home, complains of the district court’s valuation.  To correct that omission, Steven asks that we remand so more evidence about the value can be presented.  Steven argues the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $10,000 of Amy’s attorney fees.  Amy asks that we affirm and requests that Steven pay $3000 of her appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court fully and carefully considered the facts and legal issues in the written decree, and we agree with its well-reasoned conclusions.  We affirm the district court’s decree and award Amy $3000 in appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Gary McMinimee, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (7 pages)

            Delaine Petersen appeals an order granting Kirk Huehn’s motion for summary judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Petersen has not shown the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Huehn on the basis of claim preclusion.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON BOTH APPEALS AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (23 pages)

            Following the most recent modification of the order for child custody, visitation, and support, the mother, Cynthia Mellin, appeals the award of sole legal custody and physical care to the father of their twins, Doug Knotek.  She asserts Doug did not prove he could provide superior care for the children justifying a change in custody and physical care, the district court afforded too much weight to the findings of the child custody evaluator and, alternatively, Doug failed to preserve his appellate request for child support.  On cross-appeal, Doug complains the district court misunderstood his position on waiving the child-support obligation and requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court determination finding a change in circumstances warranting the grant of sole legal custody and physical care to Doug.  We modify the order to add more time to Cynthia’s visitation and to require counseling.  We remand for a hearing and determination of Cynthia’s child-support obligation.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, James M. Drew, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (4 pages)

            The defendants appeal the district court order granting summary judgment for REG Washington, LLC (REG) on its claim for restitution and dismissing their counterclaims.  OPINION HOLDS: REG is entitled to restitution for the payments it made to purchase the defendants’ units of ownership in Iowa Renewable Energy (IRE) because IRE’s board of directors refused to approve the transfer.  The defendants failed to present the necessary evidence in support of their counterclaims.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G. Linn, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Terrance Lee Clopton appeals his convictions for possessing a firearm as a felon and carrying a concealed weapon.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: Clopton failed to preserve error on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the concealed-weapon conviction, and we do not address it.  A witness testified Clopton was in actual possession of a handgun, which provides sufficient evidence to support the felon-in-possession conviction.