September 2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (19 pages)

Dawn Chambers, convicted of operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, appeals the denial of her motions to suppress evidence, specifically: incriminating statements she made to law enforcement and DataMaster breath test results obtained via search warrant.  She posits (1) her statements at the scene should have been excluded because they stemmed from custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings; (2) her statements post-arrest and the breath-test result should have been excluded because she was not informed of her right to make a phone call under Iowa Code section 804.20 (2019); and (3) the breath test results should have been excluded because she was not told she could obtain an independent chemical test under Iowa Code section 321J.11.  Lastly, in response to her supplemented motion to suppress, Chambers challenges the search warrant, alleging it was void because of a mistake in the return warrant.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the denial of Chambers’s motions to suppress the breath test result but affirm the denial of the motion to suppress the incriminating statements before the testing.  Finding harmless error for the failure to provide an independent test, we affirm the conviction for OWI. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan E. Greiner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (6 pages)

            Briana Jenkins appeals the revocation of her deferred judgment and the imposition of sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the deferred judgment or in imposing sentence, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  Special Concurrence by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Jerome Mosley Jr. appeals the denial of his petition to modify custody and care of his child with Candace Brutus, formerly known as Candace Mosley.  OPINION HOLDS: With the best interests of the child as our polestar, we find a substantial change of circumstances and that Jerome can better provide for the child’s wellbeing.  Thus, we reverse the district court order and remand for the district court to address the attendant factors of visitation and child support.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize additional supporting points that lead me to that result.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            Matthew Minium appeals his criminal convictions following the denial of his motion in arrest of judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Granting discretionary review and finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds authorizing termination.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  And we do not apply any of the permissive exceptions to preclude termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (12 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code chapter 600A (2020).  The father asserts the mother did not establish he abandoned the child, termination is not in the child’s best interests, and his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court and deny the father’s request for attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Acting through counsel, the child appeals the permanency review order dismissing the child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: With the continuing jurisdiction in district court, the parties are able to seek the appropriate remedies without the oversight of the Iowa Department of Human Services and the juvenile court.  Therefore, we affirm the permanency review order in ordering the dismissal of the CINA proceeding.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Bethany J. Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (5 pages)

            Chelsea Quinn appeals from an order modifying the provisions of her and Adam Winkowitsch’s decree of paternity, custody, visitation, and support.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the modification of the decree.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Parents appeal the termination of their parental rights over E.D.  Each argue the juvenile court did not have sufficient evidence to supports termination.  Alternatively, both request additional time to prepare for reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: There is sufficient evidence to support termination.  And delaying permanency is not a good option for E.D.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and a father appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the children cannot be returned to either parent’s care as required to terminate under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2020).  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and the parents have failed to show termination would be detrimental due to the closeness of the parent-child bond.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Deborah Farmer Minot, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer, J. and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (12 pages)

            The mother of J.R. and L.R. appeals from the modification of the dispositional order that removed the children from her care.  She argues the juvenile court was wrong in its determination the children would be subjected to adjudicatory harm if left in her care, as the risk of harm comes from the children’s father, who was then in police custody.  Additionally, she challenges the court’s credibility findings, suggesting we should view her decision to allow the children’s father access to them as akin to a drug relapse rather than proof she has not made the necessary progress to keep the children safe.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court decision modifying the prior dispositional order and removing the children from the mother’s care.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal following the adjudication of their child as a child in need of assistance.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established statutory grounds to adjudicate the child as a child in need of assistance and court aid was necessary.