2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the order adjudicating her child in need of assistance (CINA) and subsequent dispositional order.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the CINA adjudication under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(c)(2) (2020), but reverse the adjudication under section 232.2(6)(n).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her infant son.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020) and termination is in the child’s best interest, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachel E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination cited by the juvenile court; argues termination is contrary to the child’s best interests; and requests the application of statutory exceptions to termination, establishment of a guardianship, or additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (2 pages)

            Shari Hintermeister appeals the denial of her request for a second year of unemployment benefits.  OPINION HOLDS: Hintermeister does not qualify for a second benefit year because she does not meet the requirements of Iowa Code section 96.4(4)(c) (2018).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris and Thomas A. Bitter, Judges.  CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J. (20 pages)

            Doncorrion Spates appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree, attempted murder, and intimidation with a dangerous weapon.  OPINION HOLDS: Spates failed to establish any underrepresentation of a distinctive group in the jury venire was the result a systematic exclusion.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence.  We remand to the district court to make additional findings regarding Spates’s second motion for new trial claiming he did not receive a fair trial due to race-related statements allegedly made by jurors.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, James M. Drew, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  (9 pages)

            In this postconviction-relief (PCR) appeal, Lucas Lankford contends his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily given because of plea counsel’s ineffective assistance.  He also contends his plea counsel was ineffective in other ways.  And he contends his PCR counsel was ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no merit to Lankford’s arguments that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary.  His other contentions concerning plea counsel were not raised before or decided by the PCR court and are therefore not preserved for our review.  Because the record is inadequate to allow us to decide whether PCR counsel breached a duty and whether prejudice resulted, we cannot resolve this new claim on appeal.  We affirm the PCR court’s order denying Lankford relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., May, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (10 pages)

            Joseph Dobbe appeals his various convictions claiming the district court should have granted his motion to dismiss for lack of speedy indictment and alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: There was no speedy-indictment violation, and counsel was not ineffective.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            In this personal injury case, the jury answered “yes” to the question: “Was the fault of Abbie Youngwirth a cause of any item of damage to Jeffery Behle?”  The jury assessed each party with 50% fault.  It entered “$0” for each item of damage listed on the verdict form.  Behle moved for a new trial asserting the verdict was inadequate and inconsistent.  The district court denied the motion and Behle appealed.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we cannot reconcile the jury’s special findings, we must reverse its verdict as to damages.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I agree that the verdict is inconsistent.  I specially concur because a sealed verdict in today’s world does not stand in the way of the use of additional deliberations to address an inconsistent verdict and, in my view, should be a preferred option.

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

            Defendant appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction of domestic assault, third or subsequent offense.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the court considered multiple adequate factors and did not rely on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds in deciding the mandatory minimum term of incarceration.  Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Michael Thompson appeals the district court’s sentencing decision following his convictions for second-degree burglary and two counts of first-degree harassment, contending the district court abused its discretion in (1) imposing “a maximum sentence for a first-time felon engaged in non-violent conduct who caused no permanent physical damage to persons or property” and (2) failing “to clearly state the reasons supporting its sentence on the record during the sentencing hearing.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Thompson’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County, Ann M. Gales, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (15 pages)

                Robert Cook appeals his conviction of operating while under the influence (OWI).  He argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable seizures, statutory rights under Iowa Code section 804.20 (2018), and statutory implied-consent procedures.  Alternatively, he claims one of his attorneys was ineffective in waiving his ninety-day speedy-trial right without authority and another of his attorneys was ineffective in stipulating to the admission of certain evidence at trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Cook’s motion to suppress and find Cook’s attorneys were not ineffective as alleged.  We affirm Cook’s conviction of OWI. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (15 pages)

            Isaac Brown III appeals his conviction for burglary in the first degree and willful injury causing serious injury.  He argues the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction, the weight of the evidence does not support his conviction, the trial court should not have admitted prior-bad-act evidence, the prosecutor committed misconduct in referring to the complaining witness’s scarring, and the court abused its discretion in rejecting his evidence of the seriousness of injury.  He also raises multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel arguments.  OPINION HOLDS: We lack authority to consider Brown’s ineffective-assistance claims, reject his remaining claims on the merits, and affirm.