Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0547
View Summary for Case No. 22-0547
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. (5 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: Error was not preserved on the mother’s argument that the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination. The juvenile court properly denied the mother’s request for additional time to work towards reunification.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0606
View Summary for Case No. 22-0606
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (5 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child. OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree that termination is in the child’s best interests and there is no reason to delay permanency, we affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0628
View Summary for Case No. 22-0628
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Doyle, S.J. Opinion by Bower, C.J. (5 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights OPINION HOLDS: Because a ground for termination of parental rights exists and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0645
View Summary for Case No. 22-0645
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O'Brien County, Shawna L. Ditsworth, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by May, P.J. (6 pages)
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights. They both challenge the statutory grounds and ask us to apply a permissive exception to preclude termination, the mother challenges whether termination is in the best interests of the children, and the father asks we provide an additional six months to work toward reunification. OPINION HOLDS: The grounds for termination were satisfied, termination is in the best interests of the children, we decline to apply any permissive exception to termination, and we do not grant the father additional time to work toward reunification.
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0651
View Summary for Case No. 22-0651
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas J. Straka, Associate Juvenile Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (10 pages)
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to three children. The mother argues she should have been granted an additional six months toward reunification and that the strength of the bond between her and the children outweighed the need for termination. The father also argues he should have been granted a six-month extension before termination and that termination was not in the children’s best interests. OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the children’s best interests. The barriers to termination would not be overcome after an additional six months. And the strength of the bond between the mother and the children does not overcome the need for termination,
Filed Jun 15, 2022
View Opinion No. 22-0693
View Summary for Case No. 22-0693
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (6 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child. OPINION HOLDS: Having reviewed the father’s reasonable efforts, best interests, and exception arguments, we find each without merit and affirm termination of his parental rights.
Filed May 25, 2022
View Opinion No. 20-1549
View Summary for Case No. 20-1549
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner and Kevin Parker, District Associate Judges. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, J. Partial Dissent by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (21 pages)
Santos Rene Torres appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense. He contends the district court should have granted his suppression motion, arguing an illegal seizure and a Miranda violation. Alternatively, he contends there was insufficient evidence of intoxication to support his conviction. OPINION HOLDS: Police were lawfully in the Torres home conducting a child-endangerment investigation. During that investigation, officers acquired reasonable suspicion that Torres had been driving while intoxicated. Torres was not subject to custodial interrogation. So the district court correctly denied the suppression motion. Finally, the State’s evidence supported the district court’s determination of guilt. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I agree there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s determination that Torres operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated. But I would reverse the suppression ruling.
Filed May 25, 2022
View Opinion No. 20-1565
View Summary for Case No. 20-1565
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge. WRIT SUSTAINED AND REMANDED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ. Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J. (5 pages)
William Renken appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a jail credit under Iowa Code section 903A.5 (2019), contending the district court erred in “failing to order credit for time served in another county.” OPINION HOLDS: We sustain the writ and remand for entry of an order confirming Renken’s completion of his Poweshiek County sentence.
Filed May 25, 2022
View Opinion No. 20-1574
View Summary for Case No. 20-1574
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Randy V. Hefner and Thomas P. Murphy, Judges. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J. Opinion by Badding, J. (6 pages)
Justin Steil appeals several criminal convictions, following guilty pleas, and the imposition of consecutive sentences upon two of his convictions. OPINION HOLDS: Steil agrees supreme court precedent defeats his ability to challenge the effectiveness of his counsel, and we conclude the court provided sufficient reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences.
Filed May 25, 2022
View Opinion No. 20-1631
View Summary for Case No. 20-1631
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge. APPEAL DISMISSED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (7 pages)
Willie Jeffries appeals the denial of his seventh petition for postconviction relief. OPINION HOLDS: Jeffries missed the appeal deadline and does not provide a sound explanation for his extreme delay. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Filed May 25, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0184
View Summary for Case No. 21-0184
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ. Opinion by May, P.J. (5 pages)
Michael Billick appeals the denial of his Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012 petition as untimely. OPINION HOLDS: Billick failed to preserve error on his claim that an Iowa Code section 236.5(2) (2019) petition amounted to an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904 motion and, therefore, the one-year period for filing his rule 1.1012 petition did not start until the section 236.5 petition was denied. Billick also failed to preserve error on his claim that his rule 1.1012 petition was timely due to a tolling provision in an Iowa Supreme Court supervisory order. Without consideration of these arguments, we cannot conclude Billick’s rule 1.1012 petition was timely.
Filed May 25, 2022
View Opinion No. 21-0303
View Summary for Case No. 21-0303
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Zachary Hindman, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., May, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (8 pages)
Jena and Ricardo Reyes (Reyes) appeal the denial of their motion for additional time to designate an expert witness and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on their medical-malpractice claim. OPINION HOLDS: Reyes did not show substantial compliance with the expert-designation deadline or good cause for missing the deadline. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes’s motion for additional time to designate an expert witness. Because Reyes lacked an expert witness, the court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.