Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 18-1884
View Summary for Case No. 18-1884
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, Judge. SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Mahan, S.J. Opinion by Mahan, S.J. (3 pages)
Patrick Chamberlin appeals the restitution ordered as part of his sentence in four consolidated criminal proceedings. OPINION HOLDS: We vacate the portion of the sentencing order involving restitution for court costs and correctional fees and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2019).
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 18-2003
View Summary for Case No. 18-2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Joel W. Barrows, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (12 pages)
Devario Talley challenges his convictions for eluding and child endangerment. He contends the State did not offer enough evidence to merit an instruction on the alternative theory of aiding and abetting. OPINION HOLDS: Neither direct nor circumstantial evidence sustains the prosecutor’s belated theory of aiding and abetting. The record lacked sufficient evidence to support a jury instruction on aiding and abetting. Also, because the jury returned general verdicts—not specifying between the State’s two theories—we must reverse and remand for a new trial.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 18-2107
View Summary for Case No. 18-2107
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. (5 pages)
This case involves yet another attempt by Jay Driesen to collaterally attack a judgment entered in 2008 pertaining to this trust. He appeals from a series of orders entered November 20, 2018. OPINION HOLDS: Because Jay has not brought to our attention any issues related to the orders at issue in this appeal and has not cited any relevant authority demonstrating Jay’s entitlement to relief, we deem him to have waived all issues on appeal. Additionally, since the only claims Jay makes in his briefs are those seeking to collaterally attack the 2008 order, we find such claims to be barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Therefore, we affirm.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 18-2116
View Summary for Case No. 18-2116
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle, Judge. CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.2 Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by May, J. (11 pages)
Following a jury trial, Shanna Dessinger was convicted of child endangerment. She appeals arguing (1) hearsay was improperly admitted, (2) her Confrontation Clause rights were violated, (3) trial counsel was ineffective, and (4) the district court failed to make an ability-to-pay determination before imposing court costs. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Dessinger’s conviction. We vacate the restitution portion of her sentencing order and remand for resentencing.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 18-2197
View Summary for Case No. 18-2197
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., May, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Danilson, S.J. (18 pages).
Derris Swift appeals his convictions of intimidation with a dangerous weapon, willful injury resulting in serious injury, possession of marijuana, and attempt to commit murder. OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain exhibits that were used to impeach the prior inconsistent statements of witnesses. Swift has not shown he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s failure to (1) raise an objection based on State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219, 225 (Iowa 1990); (2) object on hearsay grounds to evidence used to test a witness’s memory; and (3) request a more specific instruction on the use of impeachment evidence. Additionally, the plain-error rule is not recognized in Iowa. We affirm Swift’s convictions.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0048
View Summary for Case No. 19-0048
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (11 pages)
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) revoked a man’s driving privileges pursuant to a habitual-offender statute. He appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for judicial review. OPINION HOLDS: The appellant’s argument that the subsection of Iowa’s habitual-offender statute pertaining to eluding contains an element not present in Iowa’s eluding statute was not raised to IDOT and is therefore unpreserved. Iowa precedent allows IDOT to count a deferred judgment as a “final conviction” for purposes of Iowa Code section 321.555(1) (2018), and it is the date of an offense, not the date of conviction, that counts for purposes of the time periods enumerated in section 321.555(1).
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0083
View Summary for Case No. 19-0083
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Colleen Weiland, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (9 pages)
Richard Cortez appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, contending that his Brady rights were violated, the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, and his counsel was ineffective for various reasons. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0101
View Summary for Case No. 19-0101
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. Dissent by May, J. (13 pages)
Santos Rosales Martinez appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his 2002 second-degree sexual abuse conviction, contending (1) his PCR counsel was ineffective in “not communicating with [him] at any time,” (2) the court “erred in hearing the State’s pre-answer motion to dismiss prior to [his] being notified that an attorney had been appointed to represent him,” and (3) the failure of the department of corrections to admit [him] to the sex offender treatment program was “a loss of the accrual of earned time” and “a substantial deprivation of his liberty interest.” OPINION HOLDS: We find the first issue dispositive, and we reverse and remand the dismissal of the postconviction-relief application. DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent. The record and briefing are not sufficiently developed for us to decide Rosales Martinez’s ineffective-assistance claims. We should affirm and preserve his claims for development in a future postconviction-relief proceeding.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0138
View Summary for Case No. 19-0138
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joel D. Yates, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ. Opinion by May, J. (7 pages)
Greg Schindler appeals his convictions for ongoing criminal activity and first-degree theft. He claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. OPINION HOLDS: Schindler’s counsel was not ineffective. So we affirm.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0161
View Summary for Case No. 19-0161
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark D. Cleve, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (12 pages)
A defendant appeals from convictions on two counts of sex-offender-registry violations. OPINION HOLDS: We reject the defendant’s arguments under the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure as unpreserved. With one narrow exception, we find the record insufficient to evaluate the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims raised in Bell’s pro se brief and the brief of his appellate counsel. We preserve these claims for possible future postconviction proceedings, and we reject any claim that the judge in this case should have recused himself or that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0208
View Summary for Case No. 19-0208
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge. CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J. Opinion by Blane, S.J. (14 pages)
The defendant appeals his convictions for willful injury causing bodily injury and assault with a dangerous weapon. He contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on specific intent, denying his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, and imposing court costs without adequately considering his reasonable ability to pay. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing as to Oliver’s reasonable ability to pay court costs and correctional fees.
Filed May 13, 2020
View Opinion No. 19-0219
View Summary for Case No. 19-0219
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Randy V. Hefner, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (9 pages)
A father contends the “unilateral actions and inactions” of his former wife prompted the district court’s modification of the physical care of their two daughters. The father seeks to return to their shared-care arrangement and believes the court should hold the mother in contempt. OPINION HOLDS: Because it is appropriate to modify custody when shared custody provisions incorporated into the decree “have not evolved as envisioned by either of the parties or the court” or when the parents simply “cannot cooperate or communicate in dealing with their children,” we find the mother showed a substantial change in circumstances to justify modification. Next, because the father did not prove the mother willfully violated the original decree, the mother cannot be held in contempt. We affirm.