2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            An incarcerated father who had not seen his fourteen-year-old child for nearly six years challenges the termination of his parental rights.  He argues reasonable efforts were not made toward reunification and termination of his parental rights is not in the best interest of the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the father’s claims unpersuasive, we affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (10 pages)

            The State appeals the juvenile court’s denial of the petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father to N.B., born in 2016, and M.B., born in 2017.  The State challenges the juvenile court’s determination that DHS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify these children with the mother and father and that termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the juvenile court that the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify N.B and M.B. with the mother and father, we affirm the denial of the State’s petition to terminate the parents’ rights.  As the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination, we do not consider whether termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Mary L. Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one of her children.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and the juvenile court should have granted her additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the decision of the juvenile court to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s permanency order that established a guardianship for his child.  He contends the Iowa Department of Human Services did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification and a guardianship is not in the child’s best interest.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father did not preserve error on his reasonable-efforts claim.  And we conclude establishment of a guardianship is in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., May, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds authorizing termination.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  No exception to termination applies.  And the juvenile court correctly denied the mother’s request for additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., May, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court decision terminating his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support termination of the father’s parental rights.  The father did not preserve his claim regarding reasonable efforts.  Termination of the father’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, and none of the exceptions to termination should be applied.  We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Casey D. Jones, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., May, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter, C.C.  OPINION HOLDS: Agreeing with the juvenile court that the statutory grounds to support termination were proved by clear and convincing evidence, additional time was not warranted, it is in the child’s best interests to terminate parental rights, and no strong parental bond hinders termination, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (8 pages)

            Joshua Guill appeals his conviction for second-degree murder, contending that (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of his two younger brothers, who were slated to testify to his “non-violence and patience as a caregiver as they were growing up,” (2) the district court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction on prior inconsistent statements under oath, and (3) his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to object to a jury instruction stating that the jury could consider his out of court statements “just as if they had been made at this trial.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J. (13 pages)

            James Mincks appeals his convictions for second-degree and third-degree sexual abuse.  He asserts insufficient evidence supports his convictions, the court erred in admitting hearsay and vouching testimony, and trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supports the verdicts and the court did not err or abuse its discretion in permitting testimony and affirm.  We preserve one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for potential postconviction relief and dismiss the other ineffective-assistance claims on the merits. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Awadia Deng challenges her conviction for marijuana possession.  Deng did not move in arrest of judgment to challenge her guilty plea.  She contends the district court failed to warn her of the consequences of not moving in arrest of judgment.  She also alleges her attorney was ineffective in advising her about the immigration consequences of her guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: Because both the signed guilty plea and the order accepting the plea contained full explanations of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment, Deng waived error by opting not to move in arrest of judgment.  Also, because the record is inadequate to resolve her ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, we affirm her conviction but preserve her claim for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  REVERSED and REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (10 pages)

            Anthony Ernst appeals his conviction of attempted burglary in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 713.6B (2017).  He argues the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the verdict and that it is against the weight of the evidence.  He also argues his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the admission of cell phone records.  OPINION HOLDS (after rehearing): Because the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, we reverse and remand for judgment of acquittal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Joel W. Barrows, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Raul V. Ruiz Jr. appeals his conviction for failure to comply with sex offender registry requirements, second or subsequent offense, as an habitual offender, contending that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to establish he “knowingly” failed to comply with the registry requirements; (2) the district court’s findings of fact were inadequate; (3) the district court erred in concluding that Iowa Code section 901.8 (2018) required the imposition of consecutive sentences; (4) the conviction was void because of “extrinsic fraud”; (5) the district court erred in interpreting Iowa Code section 692A.103(1) to require registration; and (6) the district court lacked territorial jurisdiction.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.