January 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Larry Twigg appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no cause for reversal on the issues properly presented on appeal, we affirm the dismissal of Twigg’s PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (9 pages)

            Johnny Johnson appeals the summary dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Johnson’s application is barred by the statute of limitations found in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2019).  Section 822.3 is not unconstitutional.  And equitable tolling does not apply to section 822.3.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            Defendant appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that he is an individual with a prior sexual conviction.  He further argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial following the admission of evidence lacking proper foundation.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the record contains substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion and the court did not abuse its discretion. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (14 pages)

Isaac Millanes-Ortiz (Ortiz) appeals the district court’s ruling affirming the denial of permanent partial disability benefits by the Workers' Compensation Commissioner (the commissioner).  He attacks the commissioner’s decision from three angles.  First, he claims the commissioner erred as a matter of law by only considering the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines to determine permanency.  Next, Ortiz argues the commissioner misapplied law to fact by failing to consider chronic pain as sufficient evidence of a change in physiological capacity in a scheduled-member case.  And finally, because the district court found Ortiz suffered from chronic pain, Ortiz maintains the commissioner’s decision to deny permanent disability is not supported by substantial evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Evidence was sufficient to support the decision made by the commissioner, there was not a misapplication of law to fact, and the AMA guidelines further supported this decision even when countered with evidence of chronic pain.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (21 pages)

            Clinton Conkey appeals his convictions in three consolidated cases for several drug-related offenses and carrying a dangerous weapon.  He moved to suppress in each case based on his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the district court denied all three of them.  Now challenging those suppression rulings, Conkey reprises his constitutional arguments from his motions to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding exceptions to the warrant requirement in the first two cases, we uphold the four underlying convictions.  But we reverse the convictions for possession of methamphetamine and carrying a dangerous weapon in the third case, finding the court should have suppressed the evidence found as a result of an unlawful seizure.  We remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion and for resentencing on the remaining convictions. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Todd A. Hensley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., May, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress and to reconsider and his conviction for operating while intoxicated, claiming the traffic stop was unconstitutional.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we find the patrol car video is evidence that supports the officer’s reasonable suspicion that the defendant was operating his vehicle while intoxicated and the stop was therefore constitutional.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            Gail Randall (Randall) and her husband, Roger Randall, appeal the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the employer on a claim of wrongful discharge.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the employer on Randall’s claim of retaliatory discharge should be affirmed.  Randall did not generate a genuine issue of material fact on the element of causation.  Also, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the employer on Randall’s claim of disability discrimination because Randall did not present a genuine issue of material fact on the first element, that she was disabled.  We affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (11 pages)

            James Vandermark appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial relating to a willful-injury charge the combined sentences imposed for three separately charged offenses.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in allowing an amendment to the trial information or abuse its discretion in denying a motion to continue.  The jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence.  The court was within its discretion in imposing the combined sentences.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (7 pages)

            Gustaf Carlson appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to extortion.  OPINION HOLDS: On appeal, we do not consider evidence not in the record.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Carlson to a term of incarceration instead of probation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (17 pages)

            Steven Schueller appeals the district court’s order granting Allison Gillies’s partition claim and awarding unpaid assessments to Stone Hill Community Association (Stone Hill).  OPINION HOLDS: Schueller failed to establish adverse possession.  Stone Hill’s action to collect unpaid assessments was not barred by res judicata.  Because the assessment provisions in Stone Hill’s 1976 covenants are not “use restrictions,” they are not subject to Iowa Code section 614.24 (2018).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (11 pages)

            A former husband appeals from the decree dissolving his twenty-four year marriage, challenging the awards of spousal support and property division.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the economic awards equitable based on the length of the marriage and each party’s relative contributions, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (21 pages)

            Hancy Chennikkara appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to Suraj Pazhoor.  Hancy argues the court erred in (1) placing the parties’ children in their shared physical care, (2) awarding her an inadequate spousal-support award, (3) calculating Suraj’s medical-support obligation, and (4) not awarding her attorney fees.  Hancy requests an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the court’s award of shared physical care.  We modify the district court’s spousal-support award.  We agree with Hancy that Suraj is not entitled to a deduction for the health-insurance premium attributable to the children, as it is already deducted to reach Suraj’s gross income.  We modify Suraj’s child-support obligation based on our calculation of Hancy’s income, modification of spousal support, and conclusion Suraj is not entitled to a deduction for the health-insurance premium attributable to the children.  We affirm the denial of Hancy’s request for trial attorney fees, but we award Hancy appellate attorney fees in the amount of $3000.00.  Costs on appeal are assessed to Suraj.