2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (17 pages)

            Chad Vice appeals his conviction for first-degree burglary and assault while participating in a felony.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the culprit.  He also argues the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from an investigating officer.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the evidence was sufficient and the improper admission of hearsay was not prejudicial, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Myron L. Gookin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Jonathan Hart appeals from the district court order rejecting his request to set aside the sheriff’s sale in a foreclosure action.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Hart suffered no prejudice from the absence of a recorded sheriff’s deed and no statutory authority exists to set aside the sheriff’s sale.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Mayual Anyuon appeals the district court decision denying his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court did not err in its conclusion that Anyuon’s petition for postconviction relief was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018).  We affirm the district court’s decision granting summary disposition to the State.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter (Trial) and Joseph Seidlin (Motion to Continue), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (12 pages)

            Shane Michael appeals his conviction for willful injury causing serious injury.  He claims (1) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue trial; (2) the court erred by concluding an exception to the hearsay bar did not apply to certain proposed evidence; (3) there is insufficient evidence that he intended to cause serious injury or that he caused serious injury; and (4) he should have been granted a new trial because the greater weight of the evidence supports his claim that he acted in self-defense.  OPINION HOLDS: The court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Michael’s motion to continue trial.  No exception to the hearsay bar applied to the proposed evidence.  Michael’s conviction is supported by substantial evidence.  And the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Michael’s motion for new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Amy M. Moore, Judge (Trial), James A. McGlynn, Judge (Motions).  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (30 pages)

            Zackery Bassett appeals his conviction for second-degree murder.  He claims the district court improperly admitted prior-bad-acts evidence, statements Bassett gave police prior to receiving Miranda warnings, testimony from sheriff’s deputies about statements the victim gave them following a separate incident of domestic violence, and testimony from the medical examiner that exceeded the scope of expert testimony.  He also claims the court should have granted a mistrial following testimony from a witness.  Further, he contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction.  And he requests a new trial based on juror misconduct.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no error by the district court, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Amy M. Moore, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (8 pages)

            Brody Walker appeals the denial of his action for postconviction relief.  He contends his sentences for theft and robbery violate double jeopardy.  He also claims trial counsel was ineffective in both the pre-trial investigation and plea hearing stages.  OPINION HOLDS: Because robbery and theft are not the same offense for double jeopardy and trial counsel performed competently, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Datron Simmons appeals his conviction for second-degree murder, challenging (I) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s finding of guilt; (II) the denial of his objection to the State’s exercise of a peremptory strike of a potential juror; (III) the admission of hearsay evidence; and (IV) the admission of evidence concerning a prior conviction for domestic abuse assault.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the jury’s finding of guilt and Simmons’ judgment and sentence for second-degree murder.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Brandi Fipps appeals from a grant of summary judgment dismissing her action against Progressive Universal Insurance Company (Progressive).  She argues Iowa Code section 516A.1 (2017) requires Progressive to provide her with underinsured motorist coverage because a new policy was created when she replaced the vehicle covered under an insurance policy issued by Progressive and she did not waive such coverage at the time she replaced the vehicle.  OPINION HOLDS: A new policy was not created when Fipps replaced the vehicle, so a second waiver was not required.  Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Marshall Louis Field appeals his guilty pleas based on an alleged defect in his plea proceedings.  He asserts the district court failed to engage in a sufficient plea colloquy, which violated his constitutional rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Being without jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages)

            Kim Barber appeals a district court determination that bank accounts of a decedent are the sole property of the estate, arguing the court erred in concluding she failed to meet her burden to rebut a presumption of undue influence.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that Barber failed to meet her burden to rebut the presumption of undue influence.  As a result, we affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (8 pages)

            An employee appeals the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of her former employer and others in a suit arising out of her employment.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s judgments on all counts.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.   Opinion by Badding, J.  (24 pages)

            Euric Fountain appeals the district court’s grant of the State’s motion for summary disposition on his application for postconviction relief.  He argues the court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether his application was exempted from the statute of limitations.  He also argues summary disposition was improper because genuine issues of material fact remain and preclude the State’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.  Lastly, he argues the court “failed to analyze the effect of the new evidence on the evidence at trial,” which seems to be a claim that the new evidence probably would have changed the result of the trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the entry of summary disposition and conclude, based on the undisputed facts, that Fountain cannot show the recantation evidence is material and probably would have changed the outcome of the criminal trial as required for a newly-discovered-evidence claim under Iowa Code section 822.2(1)(d) (2017).