2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Christopher Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran, Tabor, Greer, Schumacher, and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (20 pages)

            Justin Hurdel appeals his conviction for first-degree murder.  He claims the district court should have suppressed statements he made during a police interrogation as well as text messages obtained from his phone.  He also raises evidentiary claims related to text messages from his deceased ex-wife.  He contends there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the court properly allowed the statements Hurdel made to police. Further, the court properly admitted the disputed text messages and any alleged error would be harmless.  Finally, sufficient evidence supports Hurdel’s conviction.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Brook Jacobsen, District Associate Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            A defendant claims he did not enter into a plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily.  He also claims the joint-recommended sentence in the plea was not what he agreed to as part of the plea.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because the defendant has not demonstrated good cause to appeal, we dismiss his appeal. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Mullins, *S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Jeremy Behrends appeals his dual convictions of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the jury’s verdicts enjoy substantial evidentiary support on the elements Behrends’s claims can be interpreted to challenge, we affirm his convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Abel Ramirez seeks postconviction relief, claiming his conviction and sentence for robbery in Iowa was based on the same event as his federal conviction, which violates double jeopardy principles and, consequently, his Iowa sentence is an illegal sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We have no authority to overrule Iowa Supreme Court precedent.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

            Thomas Gansen appeals the district court order overruling his objections to the final report of the estate of Cyril Gansen.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Thomas failed to support his preserved objections with evidence that would require modifications to the final report, we affirm the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (13 pages)

            Joshua Barr appeals his commitment as a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code Chapter 229A (2015).  He argues the district court erred by concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a mental abnormality and he was more likely than not to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence.  OPINION HOLDS: The court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (19 pages)

            David Sean Hunter appeals his conviction of first-degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Hunter was not justified in killing his roommate.  A reasonable fact finder could conclude that Hunter did not act in self-defense because he either started or continued the incident that resulted in death, or his use of force was unreasonable.  II. The district court properly exercised its discretion in denying Hunter’s motion for mistrial and in ruling on the admissibility of evidence.  Because Hunter has not established prejudice in any of his individual assignments of error, his claim of cumulative error likewise fails.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (3 pages)

            Jeremy Scot Quillen appeals his convictions and sentences for domestic abuse assault, third or subsequent conviction, and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.  Quillen argues the trial court erred in failing to merge the two convictions and asserts sentence should have been imposed only on the domestic-abuse-assault-causing-bodily-injury conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Quillen’s merger argument would defeat the legislative policy behind statutory enhancement for third-or-subsequent-offense domestic abuse assault, we find no error.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Martha L. Mertz and Terry Rickers, Judges.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Tyler Thurston appeals his sentence for sexual abuse in the third degree, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and child endangerment.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed.  We remand for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc order to reflect Thurston pleaded guilty to and was convicted and sentenced for sexual abuse in the third degree under Iowa Code section 709.4(1)(b)(3)(a) (2020).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County, Charles Borth, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (18 pages)

            Defendants appeal two district court rulings following a remand in corporate-dissolution litigation, the first being the court’s determination and application of a discount rate for transaction costs and the second being the court’s award of appellate attorney fees to the plaintiffs.  As to the first ruling, the defendants argue they were deprived of their right to appear, present evidence, and be heard following remand, and the court erred in its credibility assessments as to the expert witnesses.  As to the second, they argue the court was without jurisdiction to award appellate attorney fees and the court abused its discretion in entering the award.  OPINIONS HOLDS: We reject the defendants’ claim that the remand order mandated that they be provided an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and be heard.  Finding the district court’s credibility finding supported by the record, we reject the defendants’ challenge to the district court’s credibility assessment and, by extension, its fair-value determination.  We conclude the district court had authority to entertain the plaintiffs’ application for appellate attorney fees, and we are unable to conclude the award was based on grounds that are clearly unreasonable or untenable

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Marty McConnell appeals his conviction for indecent exposure, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm McConnell’s judgment and sentence for indecent exposure.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Milton Serrano Jr. appeals his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with malice aforethought or without justification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Serrano acted with malice aforethought and without justification, we affirm.