2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm because clear and convincing evidence supports termination, and we decline to apply a permissive exception to termination. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Parry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother failed to preserve error on her claims, and even if error was preserved, she waived the issues she attempts to raise.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

                       The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She purports to challenge the statutory ground for termination and argues the loss of her parental rights is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, William Owens, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            The father, Q.B., appeals the appointment of a guardian for his seventeen-year-old child, B.B., contending the statutory requirements for appointment of a guardian have not been met and the court did not properly consider the parental preference.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we disagree with both contentions.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly, Judge.  REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED ON CONDITION IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (20 pages)

            Anthony Mong appeals his convictions for attempted murder, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, willful injury causing bodily injury, and going armed with intent.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Mong did not have the benefit of the Plain/Lilly/Veal line of cases, and because he is entitled to access the information needed to enforce his constitutional right to a jury trial and was not given access to that information, we will remand to give him an opportunity to develop his arguments.  We affirm in the court’s denial of Mong’s motion to compel.  Finally, there is no evidence of a specific intent to harm or kill Shane Woods and, thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the charges of for attempted murder, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, and willful injury causing bodily injury.  We reverse those convictions.  We conditionally affirm the conviction for going armed with intent and remand the matter to the district court for development of the record on the challenge to the composition of the jury.  Following development of the record, we direct the district court to determine whether Mong’s constitutional right to a representative jury was violated.  If so, the court shall grant a new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Margaret Reyes and Jeffrey L. Larson, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (23 pages)

            Toby McCunn appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree.  He contends (1) the court did not properly instruct the jury on justification; (2) the court should have moved the trial from Page County; (3) the jury was biased because the court failed to strike a juror for cause; and (4) the court should have excluded prior bad acts evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no basis for reversal in the jury instructions, the court’s decision not to change venue, its refusal to strike juror R.Y. for cause, or the admission of prior bad acts evidence.  So we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Michael Lajeunesse appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR), contending his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Lajeunesse’s PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., May, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by May, J.  (2 pages)

            David Boggs appeals an order denying his motion to extinguish his restitution obligation.  OPINION HOLDS: Boggs raised an identical argument in a prior appeal, in which we affirmed.  Because his claims are identical, we affirm again and without further opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (8 pages)

            Mar’yo Lindsey appeals the district court’s denial of his postconviction relief application.  OPINION HOLDS: Lindsey failed to preserve error on one of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.  All others are denied on their merits.  We do not reach the merits of Lindsey’s claims regarding the district court’s refusal to keep the record open to obtain testimony from an alleged alibi witness who was subpoenaed for the hearing but failed to appear.  The denial of his application is affirmed.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (8 pages)

            Joshua McDonald appeals from the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  Despite the fact he was not convicted, but instead held in contempt, McDonald argues that he is entitled to PCR.  Alternatively, he argues the case should have proceeded as a habeas corpus claim.  OPINION HOLDS:  Because McDonald was not convicted of a public offense, PCR is not available to him.  We affirm the dismissal and remand to address the motions still pending in his contempt case. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding, J., and Gamble, S.J.   Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (17 pages)

            Quintarius Brown appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not err by overruling Brown’s hearsay objections.  The court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to present evidence of Brown’s Facebook messages or a video Brown sent to a friend.  The court properly denied Brown’s motion for new trial.  The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Brown to serve consecutive sentences.  We affirm Brown’s convictions and sentences.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Chris Foy, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Brandon McCabe appeals, and Lori McCabe cross-appeals, the decree dissolving their marriage.  Brandon argues the district court erred in failing to enforce the parties’ premarital agreement, inequitably distributing property, modifying the amount of child-support, and awarding attorney fees.  Lori argues on cross-appeal that the district court erred in failing to award spousal-support, a premarital property credit should not have been given, and the district court miscalculated Brandon’s income for the purposes of child support.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review of the record, we find the parties’ prenuptial agreement was unconscionable at the time of execution and is unenforceable.  The district court’s property distribution appropriately considered the value of assets the parties brought to the marriage as a factor in its exercise of equitable distribution.  The distribution of real property was equitable.  The district court’s award of child support was appropriate and equitable, but we modify the decree to vacate the upward deviation and remand to the district court for further proceedings.  Following our consideration of the property distribution, we agree that no spousal support was warranted.  We affirm the award of trial attorney fees and find each party should be responsible for their own appellate attorney fees.  Costs on appeal shall be split equally between the parties.