2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (3 pages)

            Lavelle Lonelle McKinley appeals from the summary dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in determining McKinley’s application was time-barred, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (10 pages)

            Michael Cosper Jr. appeals his sentencing following a guilty plea.  Though the plea agreement outlined a contested sentencing hearing, Cosper argues that the prosecutor violated the terms and spirit of his plea agreement by referencing his criminal history.  He also believes the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because the prosecutor did not violate the terms of the agreement or express material reservations about them, there was no prosecutorial misconduct that would invalidate the sentence.  As the district court provided sufficient explanation for its sentencing decision, it did not abuse its discretion.  We affirm the sentence.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Cornbelt Running Club appeals the district court’s grant of the City of Riverdale’s motion for summary judgment based on the finding that a paved path on the City’s public right of way does not constitute a “street” for purposes of Iowa Code section 657.2(5) (2020).  OPINION HOLDS: The paved path does not constitute a “street” for purposes of section 657.2(5) because the path is not used for vehicular traffic and does not otherwise obstruct or affect the flow of vehicular traffic.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (9 pages)

            Stacie Caldwell appeals the order granting summary judgment for her employer on her sex-discrimination claim.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly determined that Caldwell has not shown a male employee was similarly situated to her and treated differently.  Because she produced no other evidence to generate a question of fact over whether the reason for her termination was pretext for discrimination, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Adria Kester, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (10 pages)

            Thomas Peckumn appeals the physical-care and monetary provisions of his dissolution of marriage decree from Jessica Peckumn.  He contends that the equalization payment was inequitable based on a fortuitous appreciation of farm property and other minor miscalculations and that he should be awarded physical care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court’s distribution was fair under the circumstances, we reject Thomas’s argument about the fortuitous appreciation of the farm property.  But we reduce the equalization payment to reflect miscalculations of the non-real estate assets and to account for taxes and advance attorney fees.  And, promoting continuity of caregiving during the marriage, we affirm the physical care award to Jessica.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tamra Roberts, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (5 pages)

            Antoine Flournoy Jr. appeals his sentences for conspiracy to commit a forcible felony as a habitual offender and possession of a firearm as a felon.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Flournoy to a term of imprisonment.  We affirm Flournoy’s sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State failed to establish a statutory ground authorizing termination, termination is not in the child’s best interest, we should apply a permissive exception to forgo termination, and she should be given additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a ground for termination, and termination is in the child’s best interest.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to forgo termination and decline to grant the mother additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Rose Anne Mefford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights.  She argues the State did not prove the statutory grounds for termination, the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the child, the juvenile court should have granted her a six-month extension, and termination is not in the best interests of the child.  OPINION HOLDS: The State provided clear and convincing evidence the mother and child could not be reunified at the time of the termination hearing.  The mother never requested additional services.  The mother did not prove that reunification would be possible after six additional months.  Termination is in the child’s best interests. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Jennifer Benson Bahr, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2021), and termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist, further extension of time is unwarranted, the child needs and deserves to live in a drug and violence-free home, and the father-child bond does not weigh against termination, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.   Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (14 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  She claims termination is not in their best interest and that the court should have declined to terminate her rights based on permissive exceptions.  E.W., a minor child, contends termination is not in her best interest, a permissive exception should be applied, and the district court improperly excluded her from a portion of the termination hearing.  The guardian ad litem for E.W. also appeals, contending termination is not the least restrictive option available.  OPINION HOLDS: We find termination was in the children’s best interest and the permissive exceptions are insufficient to preclude termination in this case.  Finally, E.W.’s claim is not properly before our review.  We affirm.