September 2023 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Harold Lathrop appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief, asserting that the Iowa Department of Corrections should have given him credit for time served for each separate charge in determining his tentative discharge date.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no error in the PCR court’s findings of fact or application of the law, we affirm.

            Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  WRIT SUSTAINED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONDUCT A RESENTENCING HEARING.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Dakota Bishop petitions for writ of certiorari following his resentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding that Bishop was entitled to an in-person hearing, we sustain the writ and remand with directions to conduct a resentencing hearing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages).

            Respondent appeals his civil commitment finding that he is a sexually violent predator.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find respondent is a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A (2022).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Chad A. Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (11 pages)

            Emilio Puente appeals the district court’s grant of a pre-answer motion to dismiss his petition for judicial review challenging a decision of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City.   He argues the district court erred in granting dismissal on the basis that he failed to file and serve a notice of appeal as required by Iowa Code section 400.27 (2022).  OPINION HOLDS: Because a petition for judicial review under Iowa Code chapter 17A is not the same as a notice of appeal under section 400.27, nor can it be construed as such, we affirm the district court’s ruling granting the commission’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

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

            A defendant appeals the portion of his sentence relating to his reasonable ability to pay category “B” restitution, arguing that the district court’s determination that he had the ability to pay this restitution lacked evidentiary support or that the district court misapplied the law.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude that the defendant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that he had the reasonable ability to make restitution payments for category “B” restitution.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The appellant appeals the district court’s dismissal of his application for judicial review and affirmation of the Iowa Board of Parole’s denial of his parole.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the parole board’s decision to deny Yancey parole was not unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of its discretion and Yancey’s separation-of-powers claim was not properly preserved for our review, we affirm the decision of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  REVERSED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  Dissent by Buller, J.  (14 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children, K.B.-S. (born in 2016) and J.B. (born in 2019).  She argues the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination and the loss of her rights is not in the children’s best interests due to the parent-child bonds.  In the alternative, she requests more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: At the conclusion of the termination trial, the mother had not tested positive for cocaine or methamphetamine in more than six months and her mental health was stable for more than a year.  We reverse the termination of the mother’s parental rights and grant her six more months to work toward reunification.  DISSENT ASSERTS: In granting the mother additional time, I believe the majority opinion decides an issue that was not presented, litigated, or preserved. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Donna Bothwell, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (10 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to three children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (f), (h), and (l) (2023).  They each claim (1) the juvenile court abused its discretion by not continuing the termination hearing, (2) the evidence did not support the grounds for termination, (3) termination is not in the children’s best interests, and (4) permissive exceptions to termination should have been applied.  The father also submits the juvenile court should have established a guardianship in the paternal grandmother.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clay County, Andrew Smith, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            The mother and father of four boys separately appeal the termination of their parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1) (2023), paragraphs (e) and (f).  The mother claims the State did not make reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children, and the father claims he maintained significant contact to the extent he was able.  Both parents assert that it was not in the children’s best interest to terminate their parental rights and ask the court to consider their bond with the children as an exception under Iowa Code section 232.116(3)(c).  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the State’s grounds for termination were met and no exception is warranted, we affirm the termination of both the parents’ rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            A father and mother separately appeal the order terminating their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The father did not preserve his reasonable-efforts claim.  But even if we were to consider his claim, he has not shown the State failed to engage in reasonable efforts to reunite him with the children.  There is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights, termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interests, and an exception to termination should not be applied.  We affirm the decision of the district court on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the dispositional order transferring custody of her child to the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother has neglected and failed to supervise the child such that transfer of custody is authorized and in the child’s best interests.