2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  CONVICTION REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  Dissent by May, J.  (14 pages)

            Michael Buman appeals his conviction of wanton neglect of a resident in a health care facility.  OPINION HOLDS: Because an exhibit listing the minimum standard of care for registered nurses and an instruction on the jury’s use of that exhibit could confuse the jury or lead it to misapply the law on the issue of whether Buman knowingly acted in a manner likely to injure the resident, we reverse Buman’s conviction and remand for new trial.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Although the jury instructions were probably not perfect, I do not think they misled the jury.  Reversal is not warranted.  I respectfully dissent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (2 pages)

            Donald King appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Although King asks us to overrule precedent holding Iowa Code section 704.1(3) (2018) does not apply retroactively, we are not at liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, James A. McGlynn and Amy M. Moore, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for the aggravated misdemeanor offense of sexual exploitation by a school employee.  He contends the plea was not knowing and intelligent.  He also argues the court abused its discretion in denying his request for a deferred judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defendant received an appropriate advisory on how to challenge his plea, but did not do so, his first claim will have to wait until he seeks postconviction relief.  Finding no abuse of discretion in his sentencing, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Jami Mason appeals a modification ruling by the district court.  In the modification ruling, the district court directed Michael Kelly and Jami Mason to share the physical care of their two children.  The court also declined to hold Michael in contempt of the divorce decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Michael showed a substantial change in circumstances to justify modification.  And Jami did not prove that Michael willfully violated the decree.  We thus affirm the district court’s order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Zachary Hindman, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Ubaldo Del Real appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Gregoria Del Real, contending (1) the court failed to “imput[e] minimum wage to Gregoria for child support purposes” and (2) acted inequitably by not giving him “a greater portion of the marital equity.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm all provisions of the dissolution decree except the provisions approving the parents’ stipulation concerning custody of the youngest child and ordering custody of the youngest child to be placed with Gregoria, because we conclude the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make a child custody determination involving the youngest child.  We therefore affirm as modified.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, ten-year-old M.S., in an Iowa Code chapter 600A (2017) termination.  The district court found the father had abandoned M.S. pursuant to section 600A.8(3)(b), and termination of the father’s rights was in M.S.’s best interests.  The father challenges each of those conclusions on appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND VACATED IN PART.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            Mark and Thomas Hadaway appeal a district court order regarding the dismissal of a petition for relief from elder abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court’s assessment of costs against Mark and Thomas was in direct violation of the statute, it is reversed.  The district court’s finding regarding the necessity of litigation was irrelevant to the merits of the dismissal and attorney fee argument and is vacated.  We find the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae E. Hoover, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (11 pages)

            Matthew Edwards appeals provisions of the temporary order issued by the district court awarding temporary child and spousal support awards to Rachael Edwards.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the district court’s temporary order awarding child and spousal support to Rachael, as well as the court’s decision not to address tax exemption designations at the time of the temporary order.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Carl J. Petersen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Thomas Hare challenges the district court’s award of traditional spousal support to his former wife, Christina Hare.  He asks us to reduce the amount and duration of the support.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court’s spousal support ruling is reasonable based on the length of the marriage and the disparity in the parties’ earning, we affirm.  Also, ending Thomas’s alimony obligation at the point of his future retirement will ordinarily be considered to raise too many speculative issues to be considered in the initial spousal support award, so we see no reason to modify the decree.  We decline to award attorney fees on appeal.

            Certiorari from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, Judge.  WRIT SUSTAINED AND CASE REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            The State appeals by certiorari the grant of a deferred sentence for violating a sex offender exclusion zone.  The State contends Iowa law bars that outcome.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court misread the relevant code sections as allowing it to grant a deferred sentence for this offense.  That option was not available.  Therefore, we sustain the writ of certiorari, vacate the court’s ruling, and remand for sentencing consistent with this opinion. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because clear and convincing evidence supports the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d) (2019), termination is in the child’s best interests, and there is no countervailing reason to not terminate parental rights, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily Dean, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  Dissent by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            The biological father of D.D. appeals the dismissal of the juvenile court’s child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding, contending the purposes of the dispositional order have not been accomplished.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we conclude the purposes of the dispositional order have been sufficiently accomplished and the continuation of supervision, care,