February 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (10 pages)

                Hipolito Dubon Pantaleon (Dubon) appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He argues the postconviction court abused its discretion in denying his request for an expert witness on false confessions at state expense and in rejecting his claims of ineffective assistance of his criminal defense attorney and associated claim of cumulative error.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no cause for reversal on the issues presented for our review, we affirm the denial of Dubon’s application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Linda Fangman and George L. Stigler, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (17 pages)

            On direct appeal from four criminal convictions, Ronald Share alleges the district court denied him his constitutional right to represent himself at trial and denied him his right to counsel.  He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: In view of all the circumstances, we conclude Share’s right to represent himself was not violated by the district court.  On the record before us, we find no abuse of discretion in denying Share’s request for substitute counsel.  Because a reasonable jury could conclude Share confined his passenger as required to commit kidnapping, we affirm his kidnapping conviction.  Given the speed at which Share’s vehicle was traveling at the time it left the road and the lack of any evasive action on Share’s part, there is substantial evidence to support Share’s attempted-murder and willful-injury convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Mark Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (11 pages)

            Applicant appeals from the district court denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  However, he does not contest the PCR ruling by the district court.  Instead, he raises two brand new issues never before addressed by the district court in either the criminal case or the PCR.  He frames the two new grounds for appeal within the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric.  OPINION HOLDS: We review the claims de novo.  We determine we are able to decide these new ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on appeal, find them to be without merit, and affirm the district court ruling denying his PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (4 pages)

            Jeffrey Stockman appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of guilt.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Stockman’s judgment and sentence for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, first offense.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Julie Schumacher, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Schumacher, J., takes no part  Opinion by Greer, J.  (20 pages)

                A jury convicted Michael Montgomery of second-degree sexual abuse and acquitted him of lascivious acts with a child.  He appeals from his conviction, arguing (1) the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts and the court should overrule State v. Pearson, 514 N.W.2d 452, 455 (Iowa 1994), which provides that finding contact constitutes a “sex act” requires that the contact be “sexual in nature” but not that the act was done with the intent of sexual gratification; (2) the court erred in refusing to give a supplemental instruction after the jury asked for clarification on a jury instruction; (3) the court abused its discretion in excluding evidence under the rape-shield law; (4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by vouching for the complaining witness’s credibility during the State’s closing argument; and (5) the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction and is contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no reversible error, we affirm Montgomery’s conviction of second-degree sexual abuse.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (14 pages)

            Ralondo Nelson appeals from denial of his requests for postconviction relief in four underlying criminal cases.  OPINION HOLDS: No error was committed by the district court in rejecting Nelson’s claims his counsel was ineffective by failing to cross-examine a witness in one case and by failing to conduct an investigation before he pleaded guilty in three other cases.  Therefore, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Chris Foy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            Amando Montealvo appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree.  He argues his trial was tainted by juror misconduct and juror bias, an expert witness improperly commented on witness testimony, the court erroneously admitted vouching evidence, the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, the weight of the evidence does not support his conviction, and cumulative errors require a new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject Montealvo’s arguments and affirm his conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Brianna Blomberg appeals a revocation of license sanction issued by the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT).  Blomberg’s conviction as a habitual offender was not certified to the IDOT until December 2018, almost three years after the actual date of disposition.  This caused a lengthy delay in starting the revocation period, and Blomberg asserts that delay caused her prejudice.  The IDOT acknowledges there was a mistake creating an administrative delay in the sanction period, but it maintains that delay did not prejudice a substantial right of Blomberg.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the IDOT that the delay did not prejudice a substantial right.  We also agree that the doctrine of laches cannot operate to bar the revocation.  We affirm the decision of the IDOT upholding the revocation of license sanction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Mark E. Kruse, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (13 pages)

            Alex Spiker appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree.  He claims he should have been granted a mistrial or new trial based on the prosecution’s late disclosure of exculpatory evidence.  He also contends the district court erred in denying his motion for continuance based on newly discovered evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Spiker failed to preserve error on the first issue and waived error on the second issue, we uphold the district orders denying his motions and affirm his conviction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Martha L. Mertz, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (18 pages)

            Richard J. Erwin (R.J.) appeals, and Michael G. Erwin (Mike G.) and Erwin Farms II, LLC (Erwin II) cross-appeal, the district court’s orders regarding the management and administration of Erwin II.  R.J. argues Michael breached his fiduciary duties as the manager of Erwin II and appeals the district court’s findings regarding damages and injunctive relief.  Mike G. cross-appeals and argues there was no breach of fiduciary duties, he is entitled to injunctive relief, and the district court’s findings regarding a skid loader are errant.  OPNINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that Mike G. did engage in conduct that breached fiduciary duties and the operating agreement but agree with the remedy fashioned by the district court.  We reverse the district court regarding the CRP incident, finding that Mike G.’s admittedly purposeful conduct was in bad faith and award R.J. damages in the amount of $2985.76.  We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline any award of attorney fees.  Finally, we find Mike G.’s bad-faith conduct regarding the CRP incident renders him ineligible for indemnification due to the clear terms of the operating agreement.  We remand the matter to the district court for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (5 pages)

            Jose Lopez appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief application, contending the postconviction court erred in “refusing to take up the matter of [his] illegal sentence.”  OPINION HOLDS: Having obtained the relief in his underlying criminal case he now seeks, Lopez’s appeal is moot.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Gregory W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (17 pages)

            John Schondelmeyer appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, raising both due-process and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Schondelmeyer’s counsel knew enough about the existence of potentially favorable evidence to take advantage of it before trial, we find no due process violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  We also find Schondelmeyer failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s alleged errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.  Having found no constitutional violations, we affirm.