2022 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (5 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the father’s rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (h) (2021).  The father does not contest the statutory grounds.  He argues termination of his rights is not in the child’s best interests and makes a passing argument he should be given more time to be released from prison and reunify with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination is in the child’s best interests, and more time is not warranted here.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by May, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows that the children could not have been returned to their mother at the time of the termination hearing. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord III, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother and a father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because grounds for termination exist, an extension of time for reunification is unwarranted, and termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm the termination of both parties’ parental rights. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (11 pages)

            Kourtney Shontez Hall appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary, contending the trial court abused its discretion in allowing evidence of a prior bad act.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (16 pages)

            Elisha Mischke was charged by trial information with ongoing criminal conduct.  The trial information alleged that Mischke and two others, “individually, or by joint criminal conduct, or by aiding and abetting another” “commit[ted] multiple acts of residential burglaries, vehicle burglaries, vehicle theft, credit card fraud, identity theft, operating a motor vehicle without owner’s consent, and possession of stolen property.”  As part of a plea agreement in which other charges and other criminal cases were dismissed, Mischke pled guilty to the class “B” felony.  She was given a suspended, thirty-five year sentence and later ordered to pay $22,822.13 in restitution based on eleven separate claims.  On appeal, Mischke challenges the ordered restitution.  First, she argues the district court erred in approving supplemental restitution requests that were untimely made.  And second, she maintains the State failed to prove a causal connection between her criminal conduct and the restitution ordered.  OPINION HOLDS: Mischke has good cause to challenge the restitution she was ordered to pay as part of her sentence.  The thirty-day requirement to request restitution is directory, not mandatory, and Mischke did not establish she was prejudiced by the delayed restitution request.  We do not reach Mischke’s challenge to the causal connection between the restitution ordered and her criminal acts, except her challenge to the missing bicycle, which we find is causally related.  We affirm the ordered restitution of $22,822.13 based on eleven separate claims.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Gregory G. Milani, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            Kaleb Morrow appeals his convictions for interference with official acts—serious injury, assault on persons in certain occupations, and harassment in the first degree.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of intent to inflict serious injury and an evidentiary ruling.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the finding the defendant had the specific intent to inflict serious injury to support the convictions and Morrow suffered no prejudice from the evidentiary ruling, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by May, P.J., and Vogel and Mullins, S.J.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Joseph Rendon appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject Rendon’s claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present an alibi witness or for failing to further impeach the State’s witnesses.  We also find no cumulative prejudice resulted from these claims of ineffective assistance.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Partial dissent by Greer, J. (16 pages)

            K.E. Builders, L.L.C.; Darin Keller; and Taloyre Keller appeal the district court’s decision awarding damages to J.A. Smith Machinery Co., Ltd. on its claim of conversion of a skid loader.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court on the grant of summary judgment on liability and the award of compensatory damages.  We reverse the court’s decision on the issue of punitive damages.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur with the majority opinion with one exception—I would affirm the district court’s award of punitive damages to J.A. Smith Machinery Company, Ltd.  I believe that Smith Machinery showed by a preponderance of the evidence that Darin and Taloyre Kellers’ conduct amounted to a willful and wanton disregard for Smith Machinery’s right to the skid loader.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Zachary Hindman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages)

            Juan Antonio Nino-Estrada appeals the orders dismissing and denying the claims in his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Trial counsel was not ineffective in presenting a justification defense.  Counsel made a strategic decision to limit Nino-Estrada’s direct examination and presented an effective argument on justification in closing, and there is no reasonable probability that a more thorough direct examination would have changed the outcome of trial.  II. Nino-Estrada’s claims that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the legal concept of unanimity and the burden of proof for justification fail as a matter of law because the instructions did not misstate the law or mislead the jury.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt L. Wilke, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Badding, J., takes no part.  Opinion by May, J.  (13 pages)

            Keith Puntenney appeals a district court order denying his motion for new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings nor did it err in instructing the jury on damages. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Chad A. Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (14 pages)

            Capital Commercial Division, LLC appeals from an adverse judgment following a bench trial on the parties’ dueling breach‑of-contract claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no merit in any of Capital’s challenges, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (20 pages)

            Crystal Meints appeals the decree dissolving her marriage to Jeffrey Meints (Jeff).  She argues (1) the court’s property distribution is inequitable for various reasons, (2) the court erred in not concluding Jeff dissipated marital assets, (3) the court’s award of spousal support in her favor was inadequate, and (4) the court’s award of trial attorney fees in her favor was insufficient.  Crystal requests an award of appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s distribution of property and challenged valuations.  We reject Crystal’s claims the court failed to distribute some assets, but we modify the decree to require Jeff to pay Crystal one-half of the Iowa state tax refund.  We determine Crystal’s request that the equalization order be modified to a ten-year payment schedule is equitable and modify the decree accordingly.  We affirm the district court’s refusal to grant security for the equalization award, and we decline Crystal’s request for an acceleration clause relating to the equalization payment.  We reject Crystal’s claims of dissipation of assets by Jeff.  We affirm the amount of spousal support awarded by the district court, $3000.00 per month, but we modify the decree to provide Jeff’s obligation will continue until either party’s death or Crystal’s remarriage.  We affirm the district court’s ruling on Crystal’s request for trial and expert fees, and we decline Crystal’s request for appellate attorney fees.  Costs on appeal are assessed equally between the parties.