October 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul Huscher, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCES VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Ler He Gay appeals his convictions and sentences after a jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary, going armed with a concealed weapon, and fourth-degree theft.  OPINION HOLDS: I. There is sufficient evidence by which the jury could find Gay had an intent to commit theft on entering an occupied structure to support his burglary conviction.  A jury could also find Gay aided and abetted a theft.  II. Because the district court failed to exercise its discretion under Iowa Code section 901.10(1) (2018) in sentencing Gay for burglary, we vacate that sentence and remand for resentencing.  III. We are not allowed to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Gregory G. Milani, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (8 pages)

            Mark Humphrey appeals his conviction for third-degree burglary.  OPINION HOLDS: I. When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, there is substantial evidence that Humphrey had the specific intent to commit theft when he removed a camper and two dogs from his estranged wife’s home.  II. The district court correctly applied a weight-of-the-evidence standard in denying Humphrey’s motion for new trial.  III. We cannot decide Humphrey’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J. (14 pages)

            Jaycie Sheeder appeals her convictions of murder and robbery in the first degree and accessory after the fact, and the sentence imposed for robbery.  She argues the State failed to prove she had knowledge that a codefendant intended to commit an assault, co-conspirator statements were improperly admitted, the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, and the district court failed to exercise discretion in sentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review of the record, we find sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury’s guilty verdict for murder in the first degree.  The district court’s vague comments about the admissibility of co-conspirator statements and announcement that objections would be entertained render any arguments on statements that did not receive an objection unpreserved for our review.  The State concedes that the district court did not exercise discretion when imposing the sentence for first-degree robbery; we vacate that sentence only and remand for resentencing and correction of the code section for Sheeder’s murder conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brad McCall, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            In this direct appeal from a guilty plea Joseph Peck claims he has good cause to appeal, that his plea counsel was ineffective, and that Iowa Code sections 814.6(1)(a)(3) and 814.7 (2019) are unconstitutional as violating separation-of-powers, due process, and equal protection.  OPINION HOLDS: Under Iowa Supreme Court precedent, which we must follow, these code sections are not unconstitutional, Peck has not shown good cause to appeal from his guilty plea, and he is not permitted to raise ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in this direct appeal, so we must dismiss the appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

            Dieudonne Manirabaruta appeals his conviction, following a guilty plea, of second-degree theft.  He argues his pro se letter to the court amounted to a motion in arrest of judgment and was timely filed, the district court erred in not considering it as such, and the court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis it was unsupported by a factual basis.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no basis for granting discretionary review on the alleged motion in arrest of judgment, and finding no good cause to grant a right to appeal based on lack of factual basis supporting the plea, we dismiss the appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            Steven Mauck appeals his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse, contending the court erred in denying his motion to strike a prospective juror for cause and his motion for a new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Even if we presume the district court abused its discretion in not striking the juror for cause, Mauck did not use a peremptory challenge to strike the juror ort seek an additional peremptory challenge to strike the juror.  Mauck has failed to establish actual prejudice resulted from the denial of his motion to strike for cause.  The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (7 pages)

            After pleading guilty, Sherry Mosley appeals her convictions for possession of methamphetamine, second offense; possession of marijuana, third offense; and third-degree theft.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Mosley has not shown good cause for a direct appeal from her guilty pleas as she does not raise an issue of sentencing or competency.  Also, because Mosley has not preserved error on the issues she seeks to raise concerning the denial of the motion in arrest of judgment, we do not grant discretionary review of her claims.  As Mosley’s appeal cannot be considered on direct appeal and we do not grant discretionary review, the appeal must be dismissed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Jack Carson Jr. appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.  He argues (1) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress “because the purported alerts by the drug dog” on his vehicle “did not provide probable cause to search” and (2) his attorney was ineffective in failing to challenge the constitutionality of the traffic stop.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Carson’s motion to suppress and his conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (8 pages)

            Deandre Goode appeals the denial of his second petition for postconviction relief.  He alleges his second PCR trial counsel—much like his criminal and first PCR trial counsels—was ineffective by failing to present Facebook metadata in support of his alibi defense.  Because the record isn’t sufficiently developed, Goode asks for a limited remand to develop the evidence or leave to file a third petition.  OPINION HOLDS: Neither remedy is available to Goode, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Rustin Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (5 pages)

            Dillon Vierkant appeals the imposition of a conservatorship.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the court’s determination that it did not need an evaluation of Vierkant to determine whether the petitioner established grounds for a conservatorship.  Vierkant’s ineffective-assistance claim fails because he makes no prejudice argument.  And the appointed conservator did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Shawn and Leanne Rana dissolved their marriage by stipulated decree, which included division of their marital property.  One year later, as part of her petition to modify custody provisions, Leanne also raised a counterclaim asking the court to modify the property division based on Shawn’s alleged fraudulent concealment of certain assets.  The court later dismissed Leanne’s counterclaim, concluding (1) it was not properly brought under Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure 1.1012 and 1.1013 and (2) Leanne failed to prove her claim of fraud in equity. Leanne appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Leanne failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for her rule 1.1012 fraud claim and because she cannot obtain relief on her equitable fraud claim, we agree with the district court’s ruling dismissing her request to modify the property division in the dissolution decree. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  Partial Dissent by Tabor, J.  (23 pages)

            The defendant challenges his convictions after a bench trial on the grounds that his motion to suppress should have been granted and there was insufficient evidence to support several of the convictions.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find the motion to suppress was properly denied because the traffic stop was lawful.  Further, we find substantial evidence to support the challenged convictions and substantial evidence to support the finding that defendant’s affirmative defenses are inapplicable.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s ruling on the motion to suppress.  Assuming the stop for failure to have permanent license plates was a reasonable mistake of fact, the officer’s failure to check the back window for proof of temporary registration unreasonably extended the detention.