2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B. Clogg and Paul R. Huscher, Judges.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Nicholas Boggs appeals four drug-related convictions.  He challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained after police officers entered an enclosed porch attached to his apartment.  OPINION HOLDS: The enclosed porch is a constitutionally protected area on which Boggs enjoyed an expectation of privacy.  Even assuming that the officers had a license to enter the porch in order to make contact with an occupant of the apartment, that license does not apply under the circumstances.  The officers made contact with Boggs outside.  Boggs was in an officer’s presence when the officer entered the porch.  It follows that the only legitimate way the officers could enter the porch was with Boggs’s consent.  The record shows Boggs did not freely and voluntarily consent to the officers’ entry on the porch.  Because the officers intruded on Boggs’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Trust beneficiaries appeal the district court’s ruling that Sarah Hasken, acting as trust advisor, did not have a conflict of interest with regard to a vote where Hasken refused to vote her shares on the issue of her own removal as a director.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because beneficiaries did not prove that Hasken’s vote—whether exercised or not—amounted to fraud, dishonesty, or abuse of discretion; or was done in bad faith; or that she had a conflict of interest; we affirm the district court’s ruling. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, David A. Lester, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (17 pages)

            Taxpayers appeal the district court’s decision dismissing their petition for writ of certiorari challenging the actions of the city council and the county board of supervisors in establishing an urban renewal area with tax increment financing.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the City of Harris and Osceola County did not comply with the formal requirements under Iowa Code sections 364.3(1) and 403.17(4) (2015) before creating the urban renewal area, we find the district court erred.  Following our case law, which highlights statutory compliance and formal approval of municipal contracts by government entities, we reverse and remand. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J. (13 pages).

Jake Skahill appeals the district court’s entry of judgment following his convictions of second-degree sexual abuse, lascivious acts with a child, enticing a minor, and indecent exposure.  He argues the guardian ad litem exceeded the scope of her statutorily authorized duties.  Alternatively, Skahill argues that if the guardian ad litem’s participation is statutory authorized, application of the statute violated due process.  Also, Skahill contends the district court erred in admitting video recordings of forensic interviews with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Skahill’s judgment and sentence.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Thomas G. Reidel and Patrick McElyea, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (14 pages)

            The executors appeal several issues concerning the district court’s construction of the decedent’s will.  OPINION HOLDS: We determine the district court properly ruled a restriction on alienability in the decedent’s will was not valid.  We affirm the court’s ruling on the provisions of the will concerning the farm tenant’s first right of refusal to purchase the farmland and his continued leasing of the property. The court properly determined the boundary lines of the decedent’s residence.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey L. Harris, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Matthew Kippe appeals his conviction for failure to comply with the sex offender registry.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the marshalling instruction did not misstate the law, counsel did not breach a duty by failing to object to it.  Kippe failed to preserve error on his claim of insufficient evidence because he raises a different argument on appeal than he raised in the trial court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E. Hoffmeyer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Johnson appeals the denial of his application for postconviction-relief, arguing that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to obtain cell phone records, failing to depose witness Gonzalez, and failing to obtain testimony from witnesses he claims could’ve assisted at trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that trial counsel’s performance was sufficient, and no prejudice resulted from trial counsel’s performance.  Thus, we affirm the district court’s denial of Johnson’s application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS APPEAL.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (21 pages)

            This case involves a dispute between seven siblings regarding the estate of their mother.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs both on their will contest and their claim the defendants intentionally interfered with their inheritance.  The defendants appeal, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: The plaintiffs’ cross-appeal is waived for failure to identify issues or make arguments.  Regarding the intentional-interference-with-inheritance claim, the jury instructions correctly stated the law and the evidence is sufficient to prove the plaintiffs’ theories of fraud, duress, and coercion.  However, submitting the misuse-of-confidential-information theory on this claim was in error.  Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in allowing both sets of plaintiffs’ counsel to participate in trial, substantial evidence supports the verdict setting aside the will, and the trial court did not err in admitting a business record.  Therefore, we vacate the judgment and attorney fees in favor of the plaintiffs on the intentional-interference-with-inheritance claim and remand for new trial on that claim, and we affirm the verdict setting aside the will.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt L. Wilke, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A defendant appeals his criminal sentence, asserting ineffective assistance of his criminal defense attorney for failing to object at sentencing to the prosecutor’s alleged violation of the plea agreement and that the prosecutor violated his due process rights by violating the plea agreement.  The State argues we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal under recent statutory amendments to Iowa Code sections 814.6 and 814.7 (Supp. 2019).  OPINION HOLDS: The appeal only raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  The judgment being appealed was entered after the effective date of the amendment to section 814.7, and this court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (4 pages)

            Adjoining property owners appeal and cross-appeal from the district court’s order resolving a boundary dispute and the applicability of an easement.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no error, we affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (6 pages)

            Curtis Daniels appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.  OPINION HOLDS: On the record before us, we find no valid basis for granting the motion to dismiss.  We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Alan T. Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (11 pages)

            Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their petition for writ of certiorari, contending the district court erred in determining the petition “did not allege facts sufficient to amount to an illegality.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.