February 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: There is clear and convincing evidence to terminate the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020).  Termination is in the child’s best interests, and we decline to apply the provisions of section 232.116(3)(a) to avoid termination. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her children as children in need of assistance (CINA).  The mother appeals the CINA adjudication pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d) and (n) (2020).  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence supports the grounds for adjudication.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020) and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination.  And additional time to work towards reunification is not in the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (8 pages)

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

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Emily Dean, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two-year-old J.B.  She asks four questions on appeal.  (1) Did the State introduce a series of recorded jail calls (more than ninety minutes in all) without showing they were relevant and material?  (2) Did the State fail to prove by clear and convincing evidence that J.B. could not return home?  (3) Did the State fail to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family?  And (4) is a guardianship with his maternal grandmother the preferred placement for J.B.?  OPINION HOLDS: On the first issue, we decline to consider the contents of the recordings in our de novo review of the record.  For the other three questions, we answer “no” and decline to grant relief.  Thus, we affirm the termination ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mary E. Chicchelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            Brandon Hatchett appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief, contending the district court erred in allowing his appointed counsel to withdraw and him to proceed pro se.  OPINION HOLDS: The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Hatchett to represent himself.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (24 pages)

            Deantay Darelle Williams appeals his convictions for sex abuse in the third degree and assault.  He contends the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.  Next, he contends his trial attorney was ineffective in failing to suppress his police interview and blood test; failing to object to a breach of the plea agreement; and failing to explain possible consecutive sentences.  He also argues the court failed to apply juvenile sentencing factors and applied unproven charges as aggravated factors.  Meanwhile, the State asks the court to reverse the district court’s merger of Williams’s convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts and affirm the convictions.  We address and reject Williams’s first two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but preserve the last for possible postconviction-relief (PCR) proceedings.  The district court did not fail to consider juvenile sentencing factors or improperly consider unproven charges.  Finally, we do not consider the State’s argument that the district court improperly merged the convictions.  Finding no ground for reversal, we affirm the convictions and sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Helen Frazier appeals her conviction of murder in the second degree, contending (1) the record lacks sufficient evidence to support her conviction and (2) her trial attorney was ineffective in “fail[ing] to investigate and set forth an insanity defense and evidence of battered woman’s syndrome.”  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in finding Frazier guilty of second-degree murder.  We preserve Frazier’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for possible postconviction-relief proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Special Concurrence by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Charles Francis appeals the district court order dismissing his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Francis’s PCR application was untimely.  The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint counsel as Francis’s application did not present a cognizable claim.  We affirm the decision of the district court.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I agree Francis failed to allege facts that placed his claims within the ground-of-fact exception to the three-year time bar.  I am not convinced the merits of Francis’ claim whether couched as a freestanding claim of actual innocence or as a newly-discovered evidence claim could be resolved on a motion to dismiss.  Accordingly, I would simply affirm the district court’s decision on statute-of-limitations grounds.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Rustin Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON CONDITION AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J. (16 pages)

            Trapp Trotter appeals his convictions of attempt to commit murder and criminal trespass.  He argues the jury pool was not a fair cross-section of the community, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court abused its discretion related to evidentiary issues, and the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not have our supreme court’s 2019 clarifications of the applicable legal framework for cross-section challenges, we affirm on condition and remand to the district court for reconsideration of Trotter’s jury-pool challenge.  Trotter has failed to prove he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.  We find no abuse of discretion in admission of the evidence regarding the damaged windshield.  Finally, we find substantial evidence was presented to find Trotter guilty of attempted murder and criminal trespass and that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial.