2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination and contending termination is not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e) and (h) (2019).  He argues the court should have given him more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father was incarcerated and had no clear idea when he would be released, he cannot begin caring for the child at the present and the record offers no assurance he would be able to in a reasonable amount of time.  Termination serves the child’s best interests.  We affirm. 

            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 Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            DeMarrio Wright appeals following the denial of his application for postconviction relief, claiming prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Wright has failed to prove counsel was ineffective, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (8 pages)

            Frankie O’Connor appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to one count of possession of more than five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver in violation of Iowa Code section 121.401(1)(b)(7) (2016).  On appeal, O’Connor argues the district court improperly considered risk assessment scores in the presentence investigation report because the scores not “validated” under Iowa Code Section 901.11(1) and reliance on unvalidated scores violated O’Connor’s rights under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.  He also argues his trial counsel was ineffective insofar as they failed to raise those challenges at trial, and that the district court erred by requiring him to pay the court costs associated with the counts dismissed by the State.  Finally, he filed a pro se brief which requests we reduce his mandatory minimum sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: O’Connor’s due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not preserved for our review; he may bring those claims in an application for postconviction relief proceedings if he so desires.  The district court did not err by assessing court fees against him.  We cannot grant his requested sentence reduction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mary Ann Brown and Mark Kruse, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (3 pages)

            Shane Cheely appeals his guilty plea to possession of marijuana as a habitual offender.  He claims his plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Cheely failed to preserve error.  So we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Dylan Millard appeals following guilty pleas to harassment in the first degree, harassment in the second degree, and assault causing bodily injury or mental illness.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Adam Pitman appeals the district court decision denying his request for postconviction relief from his conviction of first-degree murder.  Pitman claims he received ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not present a defense of diminished responsibility.  OPINION HOLDS:  Defense counsel considered the defense and rejected it due to a lack of expert witness support.  We conclude Pitman has failed to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  We affirm the district court’s decision denying his request for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea and Mark J. Smith, Judges.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCES VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.. (14 pages)

            Dion Banks challenges his convictions and sentences following a bench trial.  Banks maintains the district court applied the incorrect standard when deciding his motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence, considered improper factors when deciding his sentence, and wrongly ordered him to pay any appellate attorney fees he incurred in the future (without the benefit of a hearing on his reasonable ability to pay).  Additionally, in his supplemental pro se brief, Banks raises a number of other issues.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not apply the wrong standard in deciding Banks’ motion for new trial, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.  Banks has not established the court relied on improper factors when deciding his sentence, so we find no abuse of discretion there either.  However, the court erred in ordering Banks to pay any fees incurred for his appointed public appellate attorney unless he affirmatively requests a hearing on his reasonable ability to pay, so we vacate that portion of the sentencing order and remand for the entry of a corrected sentencing order.  We are unable to reach the merits of any of Banks’ pro se claims. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Major Moore Jr. appeals his sentence for criminal mischief in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a term of incarceration, and we affirm Moore’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (3 pages)

            James Montgomery appeals his conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to an aggravated-misdemeanor charge of eluding.  OPINION HOLDS: Because a review of the entire record before the district court at the time of the plea hearing provides an objective factual basis for the plea, counsel did not breach a duty in allowing Montgomery to plead guilty. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (13 pages)

            A postconviction-relief (PCR) applicant appeals the denial of his application.  OPINION HOLDS: The PCR court properly ruled on applicant’s pretrial motions and denied the PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Terry Schott appeals from the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing (1) his trial attorneys were ineffective in connection with plea discussions he rejected; (2) the postconviction court erred in rejecting his claim of newly-discovered evidence; and (3) the postconviction court should have granted a new trial based on the trial court’s denial of his requests for expert witnesses.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the court’s denial of Schott’s application for postconviction relief.