2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann Lekar, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Walter Williams appeals from his convictions for involuntary manslaughter while committing a public offense and child endangerment resulting in death.  Williams maintains there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, makes ineffective-assistance claims regarding counsel’s failure to object to some jury instructions and move for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, and complains the court improperly imposed restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports Williams’s convictions, so we affirm.  Because Williams’s claims of ineffective assistance are not sufficiently developed for our review, we preserve each of those claims for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.  Due to the recently-enacted Senate File 457 and the resulting changes in the law regarding restitution, we affirm Williams’s sentences and leave it to him, once jurisdiction returns to the district court, to challenge restitution under the new laws. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (20 pages)

            Demetrias Martin appeals from his conviction for first-degree robbery.  He claims his trial counsel was ineffective, the district court applied the wrong standard when considering his motion for new trial, and he is entitled to resentencing in accordance with Iowa Code section 902.12(2A) (2019).  OPINION HOLDS: Martin is not entitled to relief on any of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.  The district court applied the correct standard when evaluating Martin’s motion for new trial.  And because the plain language of section 902.12(2A) provides that it applies retroactively to the time of Martin’s sentencing, he is entitled to resentencing to determine the length of the mandatory minimum imposed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Steven J. Oeth, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Partial Dissent by Doyle, J.  (25 pages)

            The plaintiffs contracted for the construction of a large building for commercial and agricultural purposes.  Nearly one year following the building’s completion, a windstorm caused the failure of a large overhead door on the building’s west side, which led to the building’s collapse.  The plaintiffs brought claims in tort and contract against the door supplier, the company that erected the building, and the manufacturer of the building’s structural insulated panels.  The plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for negligent design and failure to warn.  OPINION HOLDS: We hold the doctrine of economic loss applicable on these facts, and we affirm the district court’s determination that the manufacturer owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs sufficient to sustain tort claims.  We hold that the warranty at issue in this case was not an affirmative defense that needed to have been asserted at the pleadings stage.  We find that the warranty would not fail its essential purpose, and we find to be unpreserved the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant manufacturer repudiated the warranty.  We determine the warranty provision is not unconscionable.  For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I believe that EPS had a duty to warn or inform its buyers that the overhead doors needed to be wind-rated at ninety miles per hour but failed to do so.  Thus, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the manufacturer had no legal duty to the plaintiffs.  But even had the majority concluded that the manufacturer had a duty to warn, it would make no difference in the result here as that claim is barred by application of the economic loss doctrine.  I therefore concur with the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Mark T. Hostager, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A defendant appeals his sentence, claiming that the sentencing judge failed to consider all of the required factors when imposing sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the record shows the judge considered the necessary factors and did not abuse discretion in imposing sentences that were all within statutory limits.

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

            Cletio Clark appeals his conviction of robbery in the first degree.  He claims the prosecutor committed misconduct, denying him a fair trial.  And he claims his counsel was ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: Even assuming the prosecutor committed any misconduct, Clark still received a fair trial and is not entitled to relief.  And Clark’s counsel performed competently.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes and Joel W. Barrows, Judges.  CONVICTIONS VACATED IN PART, SENTENCE VACATED, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (15 pages)

            Between April and December 2018, the State charged Jacob Trujillo with various offenses in four separate cases.  The State and Trujillo reached a global plea agreement.  And Trujillo pled guilty to six of the offenses.  He appeals arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: We vacate two of Trujillo’s convictions due to lack of factual basis and remand for further proceedings.  If a factual basis cannot be shown below, the district court should vacate all convictions and set the parties back to the position they had before the plea agreement was entered.  We preserve Trujillo’s remaining claims for future postconviction-relief proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (12 pages)

            A manufacturing start-up appeals from an adverse verdict in a breach-of-contract case.  OPINION HOLDS: We disagree with the appellant’s argument that the district court’s findings were irreconcilable and the verdict was unsupported by substantial evidence.  We therefore affirm the judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            Carolyn Lindgren appeals from a jury verdict in a personal-injury case.  She argues the district court abused its discretion in allowing testimony about the pool’s steps four years after the incident at issue.  In addition, she argues the district court abused its discretion in denying a jury viewing of the pool’s steps.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the 2016 inspection testimony was relevant and non-prejudicial, we find no abuse of discretion.  We also find the decision to deny a jury viewing was well reasoned and within the sound discretion of the court.