April 2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  MOTHER'S APPEAL AFFIRMED; FATHER'S APPEAL REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  Partial Dissent by Ahlers, J.  (20 pages)

            April and Stephen appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established grounds for terminating April’s parental rights.  Termination is in L.M.’s best interests, outweighing April’s requests for termination exceptions or additional time.  As for Stephen, he agreed a ground for termination was met.  But given his substantial progress since removal, additional time for reunification is appropriate.  We affirm as to April but reverse and remand for Stephen.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur in the decision to affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights.  As to the majority’s decision to reverse termination of the father’s parental rights and provide him with additional time for reunification, I dissent because of the father’s lack of a track record of parenting and the relevant time horizon.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Casey D. Jones, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (13 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to two of her children, C.M. and J.M., under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (f), and (l) (2021).  On appeal, the mother argues the juvenile court wrongly denied her motions to continue the termination trial.  Alternatively, she argues termination of her rights is not in the children’s best interests and a permissive factor weighs against termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The court neither abused its discretion nor violated the mother’s right to due process when it denied her motions to continue.  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and the mother did not establish a permissive factor to prevent termination.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to two children, claiming the juvenile court should have granted concurrent jurisdiction so the father could pursue a bridge order.  The father also urges that the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: On these facts, a bridge order is not appropriate.  We, like the juvenile court, decline to apply a permissive exception to preclude termination.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s denial of her motion for modification of a child-in-need-of-assistance order.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the mother has not shown that she can maintain the child’s safety or that the dispositional goal has been made or cannot be met.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that neither a six-month extension nor an exception is warranted and termination was in the child’s best interests, we affirm termination of M.B.’s parental rights with respect to her child B.T.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  Chicchelly, J., and Gamble, S.J., take no part.  (33 pages)

            Wendell Harrington appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his 2012 convictions for thefts, burglaries, and eluding.  His claims include (1) a constitutional challenge to his statutory inability to submit pro se appellate briefs following the 2019 creation of Iowa Code section 822.3A; (2) that he should have been granted a new trial following the discovery of new evidence regarding drug use by an officer involved in the identification of Harrington before his arrest; (3) that the State suppressed that evidence about the officer; (4) that he should have been allowed to introduce additional depositions and DNA evidence into the PCR record after it closed; (5) that his PCR counsel was ineffective for not seeking the DNA evidence sooner; (6) that the district court failed to rule on his pro se issues regarding suppression of evidence of another suspect; (7) that his PCR counsel was ineffective in arguing the existence of the other suspect; (8) that his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to file a deposition transcript and report regarding that DNA evidence; (9) that all of his attorneys were ineffective in not arguing that his past convictions of burglary and theft were not crimes of dishonesty and, therefore, should not have been admitted as impeachment evidence against him at the underlying criminal trial; and (10) that the PCR trial judge should have recused himself.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Harrington’s application for PCR.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            Brett Jones appeals the denial of his postconviction relief application.  He contends a recent Supreme Court decision, United States v. Haymond, 139 S.Ct. 2369, 2382 (2019), renders the revocation unconstitutional.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the significant differences between the statute in Haymond and the one in this case, we find Haymond inapplicable.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, J.  (14 pages)

            Stephen Jonas appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, contending his trial attorneys were ineffective in failing to (A) request additional peremptory strikes following “the denial of a motion to strike jurors for cause”; (B) “file a motion to suppress his statements” to police; (C) “make proper objections to” an agent’s testimony; and (D) object to hearsay, vouching, and handgun evidence.  He also contends his attorney on direct appeal was ineffective in failing to challenge a trial court ruling on a juror’s conduct.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of the postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Amy Zacharias, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            Landowners appeal a district court’s determination that their neighbor established a boundary between their properties by acquiescence.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J. Harris, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (23 pages)

            Ramon Harper appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He seeks a new trial on the grounds that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective, (2) he was deprived of his constitutional right to control his own defense, (3) his right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community was violated, and (4) the State engaged in purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no grounds for reversal, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Roger L. Sailer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (9 pages)

            William Goodon appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense.  He argues the district court erred in admitting evidence a syringe and needle field-tested positive for methamphetamine and in admitting several out-of-court statements over his hearsay objections.  OPINION HOLDS: Any error in the admission of the field test results was harmless, and the out-of-court statements were either excepted from hearsay or substantially the same as other evidence in the record. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Kathleen A. Kilnoski, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Michael Ray Wineinger appeals the district court’s ruling finding his criminal trial counsel was not ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to admission of a prior video recorded forensic interview of a sex abuse witness when the recording was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801(d)(1)(B).  Wineinger failed to preserve his claim trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting jury instruction.