2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and May, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  He does not dispute the grounds for termination exist, but argues the juvenile court erred in not transferring the children to the guardianship of the paternal grandmother.  OPINION HOLDS: We adopt the juvenile court’s finding that a guardianship with the grandmother is not in the children’s best interests.  We find no reason to disturb the court’s ruling terminating the father’s parental rights and therefore affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals adjudicatory and dispositional orders involving her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the adjudication of the child under Iowa Code sections 232.2(6)(c)(2), (g), and (n) (2019).  We reverse the adjudication of the child under section 232.2(6)(b).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her child as in need of assistance and the subsequent dispositional order.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (3 pages)

            Daniel Claybon appeals the dismissal of his fifth postconviction-relief (PCR) application.  He asks this court to apply the supreme court’s holding in State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 400–04 (Iowa 2014), to adult offenders.  OPINION HOLDS: Our caselaw has continuously rejected claims that the juvenile sentencing scheme should be extended to adult offenders.  We affirm the PCR court’s dismissal of Claybon’s application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Gamble, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (9 pages)  

            Williams appeals from the denial of his postconviction-relief application, alleging that (1) “[t]rial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate potential defenses”; (2) “[t]rial counsel was ineffective in specifically failing to investigate and obtain evidence regarding the State’s sole eyewitness recanting her initial allegations”; and (3) “trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately advise [him] regarding his potential strategies and prospects before a jury, which led to [him] consenting to an Alford plea.”  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Williams’ postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mary Chicchelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (4 pages)

            Earl Travis challenges the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine), a class “C” felony.  He claims the court abused its discretion in imposing his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: The court sentenced Travis to a sentence within its discretion and provided reasons on the record for the sentence it imposed.  The sentence imposed satisfied the court’s interest in rehabilitation.  Travis failed to show an abuse of discretion.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Santanyo Pendleton appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief following his 2015 convictions of sexual abuse in the third degree, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the court’s order denying Pendleton’s application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (9 pages)

            Albert Ware appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing that the use of unreliable scientific Federal Bureau of Investigation testimony undermined his right to a fair trial and arguing that the exclusion of the testimony would probably have changed the result of the trial. OPINION HOLDS: Because error was not preserved on the fair trial issue and because the result of the trial would probably have been the same due to adequately corroborated accomplice testimony, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A. Hutchison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            T.M. appeals the district court decision finding he was seriously mentally impaired.  OPINION HOLDS: We find T.M. was entitled to a delayed appeal of the magistrate’s decision, giving the district court jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Consequently, T.M.’s appeal of the district court’s decision is not barred on jurisdictional grounds.  We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with the hearing when T.M. stated he was ready to proceed.  In the alternative, T.M. has not shown he received ineffective assistance because counsel did not file a motion for a continuance.  T.M. has not cited any legal support for his due process argument and we do not consider it.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge.  WRIT ANNULLED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Tabor, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

            Bryan Shuford contends his statutory and constitutional right to counsel was violated by the district court when his motion for illegal sentence and request for counsel was summarily denied by the district court without hearing and without appointing him an attorney.  Fifteen years after his sentencing, he now appeals from the order denying his 2018 motion to correct his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Shuford’s motion to correct an illegal sentence was proper.  But we avoid the question of whether Jefferson v. Iowa District Court, 926 N.W.2d 519, 524 (Iowa 2019), applies retroactively as, on appeal, Shuford does not challenge the substance of the district court’s denial of his motion to correct and does not make any semblance of a claim that his sentence is illegal.  We annul the writ.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes and Mark D. Cleve, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (8 pages)

            Wayne Bumpus appeals his convictions for theft and burglary.  Bumpus claims the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for continuance to permit a mental-health evaluation prior to the sentencing hearing.  Bumpus also asserts his counsel provided ineffective assistance, and the deficient assistance rendered his guilty plea involuntary.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court did not abuse its discretion and Bumpus has not established ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm.