2021 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Jennifer Bahr, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, asserting the State has failed to prove grounds for termination exist and did not make reasonable efforts to reunify the family, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and permissive exceptions exist to avoid termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J. and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (11 pages)

            Both parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights as to their two children, arguing there was insufficient evidence to meet the statutory grounds for termination.  The father also argues exceptions to termination should apply in his case.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s determination the statutory grounds for termination were met and the permissive exceptions to termination did not apply, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the child’s best interest, so we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their one-year-old daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: It is in the best interests of the child that the parental rights of her parents be terminated.  A six-month extension for reunification efforts is not warranted under the facts in this record.  Finally, clear and convincing evidence supports termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2021).  Accordingly, we affirm the order of the juvenile court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (3 pages)

            A father appeals one of the two statutory grounds authorizing termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father only challenges one of the two statutory grounds, we affirm under the unchallenged ground.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother, Jessica, appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old daughter.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence to support a ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2021) based on Jessica’s unresolved substance‑abuse and mental-health issues.  That same evidence shows termination is in the child’s best interests and a six-month extension is not warranted.  Thus, we affirm the termination order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Tabor, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (6 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, A.R., born in 2019.  He claims the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with A.R. and he should get additional time because of this failure.  The father maintains his first counsel—who withdrew about six weeks before the State filed the petition to terminate—provided ineffective assistance.  Specifically, he claims counsel breached duties in failing to advise the father (1) there were additional services he could request and (2) advise the father the failure to participate in services would lead to the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father’s claims of ineffective assistance fail.  And he does not otherwise contest the termination of his parental rights, so we affirm without further consideration.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She does not contest the grounds for termination under Iowa Code Section 232.116(1)(h) (2021).  Instead, she argues the State did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification, maintains the court should have granted a six-month extension, and claims loss of her rights is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We decline to grant an extension and affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (22 pages)

            Carlos Roig Gonzalez appeals his convictions for two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of robbery in the second degree.  Roig Gonzalez challenges the severance of his charges and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juries’ verdicts, argues his speedy-trial rights were violated, and claims the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence in his second trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Roig Gonzalez’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Tod Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Philip Stacy appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the dismissal of Stacy’s PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey L. Harris, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Zachary Becker pled guilty to operating while intoxicated (OWI), third or subsequent offense, and driving while barred as an habitual offender.  In September 2019, he was sentenced to terms of incarceration not to exceed five years and two years, respectively.  On appeal, Becker challenges his sentences, arguing the court failed to state adequate reasons on the record to support imposing them.  OPINION HOLDS: The court considered the sentencing options before it and stated adequate reasons on the record for the sentence imposed, so we affirm Becker’s sentences.  Because of the discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement and the written sentencing order, we remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc order so the sentencing order accurately reflects that Becker is to serve consecutive terms of imprisonment. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Jeremy Greening appeals from his conviction of theft in the first degree.  At his September 2019 trial, the jury was instructed it could find Greening guilty of the offense if the State proved either one of two alternatives—that Greening took possession of the skid loader with the intent to deprive the owner of it or Greening exercised control over the stolen skid loader while knowing it was stolen.  In a general verdict, the jury found Greening guilty.  Greening appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support either alternative so his conviction should be reversed.  OPINION HOLDS: We strike Greening’s reply brief, in which he raised for the first time multiple constitutional challenges to Iowa Code section 814.28 (Supp. 2019).  Because section 814.28 applies here, we need only find that substantial evidence supports one of the alternatives given to the jury to affirm Greening’s conviction.  Still, we conclude the jury could have properly convicted Greening under both alternatives and affirm.