Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0004
View Summary for Case No. 23-0004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. Van Marel, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Scott, S.J. Opinion by Scott, S.J. (3 pages)
Keatyn Palmateer appeals the sentences imposed following his pleas of guilty to felony eluding and person ineligible to carry weapons. OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0018
View Summary for Case No. 23-0018
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (12 pages)
Debra Stuart appeals from the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the workers’ compensation commissioner’s denial of her review-reopening petition. OPINION HOLDS: The commissioner erred in deciding that Stuart is ineligible for reopening solely because she lost her job in a plant closure. A worker may be entitled to reopening—even where one cause of the economic change is unrelated to the injury—so long as the continued inability to work is proximately caused by the injury. We thus reverse and remand for the commissioner to apply the proper legal standard to decide whether Stuart has shown that she is entitled to reopening here.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0055
View Summary for Case No. 23-0055
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Derek J. Johnson, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (13 pages)
Clayton Brown appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm as a felon; eluding while exceeding the speed limit by twenty-five miles per hour (mph) and participating in a felony (i.e. being a felon in possession of a firearm, which is a class “D” felony); and driving while barred as an habitual offender. Brown argues (1) the district court should have granted his motion for mistrial after an officer testified in front of the jury that Brown had “convictions on his record”; (2) there is not substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding he was the person driving the car that eluded the officer; and (3) even if there was substantial evidence Brown was the driver during the chase, there was insufficient evidence he knowingly possessed the firearm that was later found tucked underneath the driver’s seat in the car. OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial and substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding Brown was the driver of the vehicle. We affirm Brown’s conviction for driving while barred as an habitual offender. But because there is insufficient evidence Brown knowingly possessed a firearm, we reverse his convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and eluding while exceeding the speed limit by twenty-five miles mph and participating in a felony. We remand for further proceedings on the lesser-included eluding charges.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0144
View Summary for Case No. 23-0144
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (5 pages)
Jason Spence appeals from a district court decision affirming the workers’ compensation commissioner. OPINION HOLDS: The commissioner was entitled to reject Spence’s testimony as not credible, and the commissioner’s finding that he failed to prove he sustained a work-related injury is supported by substantial evidence.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0182
View Summary for Case No. 23-0182
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Bower, C.J. (7 pages)
Dee Delaney appeals the district court’s judicial review ruling upholding the agency’s denial of her claim for Second Injury Fund benefits based on a finding she had not proved a qualifying second injury. OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court and the agency rulings are based on an erroneous statutory interpretation, we reverse and remand with directions.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0484
View Summary for Case No. 23-0484
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gregory D. Brandt, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (6 pages)
A defendant appeals his sentence following his plea of guilty to driving while barred as a habitual offender. OPINION HOLDS: We determine the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant to a seven-day jail term.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-0651
View Summary for Case No. 23-0651
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, John Telleen, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (6 pages)
Jeremy Allen Adams appeals the sentence imposed following his written plea of guilty to eluding, claiming the court erred in not granting credit for time served in an Illinois jail and making certain announcements at sentencing, which require remand. He also asserts the court abused its sentencing discretion in imposing a prison term. OPINION HOLDS: Finding no error of law or abuse of sentencing discretion, we affirm.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-1055
View Summary for Case No. 23-1055
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (9 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved a ground for termination, and we find termination is in the child’s best interests, we affirm.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-1079
View Summary for Case No. 23-1079
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, James B. Malloy, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J. and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (7 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children. OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023). Because termination is in the children’s best interests and we decline to avoid termination for any of the reasons stated in section 232.116(3), we affirm.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-1196
View Summary for Case No. 23-1196
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Cynthia S. Finley, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (4 pages)
The mother appeals the modification of the permanency goal from reunification to guardianship in this child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding. OPINION HOLDS: Considering the mother’s ongoing criminal proceeding, the child’s maturity and growth in her current placement, and the mother’s lack of progress since removal, we agree modifying the permanency goal to guardianship is in the child’s best interests.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-1203
View Summary for Case No. 23-1203
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.* Opinion by Buller, J. (13 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm.
Filed Oct 25, 2023
View Opinion No. 23-1204
View Summary for Case No. 23-1204
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Mullins, S.J. Opinion by Mullins, S.J. (15 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023). He argues the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services did not make reasonable efforts at reunification, challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the ground for termination, asserts termination is contrary to the child’s best interest because “there is not sufficient evidence regarding [their] bond,” and argues the juvenile court “erred in finding that an additional period of time would not allow for reunification.” OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.