2023 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Randy V. Hefner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A granddaughter appeals the district court’s ruling that the sale of real estate by her grandmother was valid under her grandfather’s will.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the granddaughter fails to show the land sale violated the terms of the will, we affirm the ruling. 

             Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Justin R. Wyatt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (9 pages)

            The mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to continue and having found the statutory grounds satisfied, we affirm termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Crawford County, Kristal L. Phillips, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, M. and S.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find reasonable efforts were made to reunify given the mother’s level of participation, a statutory ground for termination was established, termination is in the children’s best interests, and the court correctly declined to apply any exceptions to termination, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children.  She argues the State did not meet its burden in establishing the grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we find there is clear and convincing evidence to support termination of the mother’s parental rights and we therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved a ground for termination, termination is in the children’s best interests, and the mother’s bond with the children does not preclude termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven W. Guiter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, 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 two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence supports the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights.  The mother failed to preserve error on her challenge to reasonable efforts.  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and the mother has not shown termination will harm the children based on the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Bower, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  The father challenges one of the statutory grounds authorizing termination, claims termination of his rights is not in the child’s best interests, requests application of a permissive exception to termination, and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  The mother challenges whether termination of her parental rights is in the child’s best interests and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father does not challenge three of the statutory grounds relied upon by the juvenile court, we find he waived error and we affirm under the unchallenged grounds.  Termination of both parents’ parental rights is in the child’s best interests.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to preclude termination of the father’s rights.  We decline to grant either parent additional time to work toward reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (6 pages)

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, arguing the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the child could not be returned to the father’s custody at the time of the termination hearing.  Consequently, we affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Buller, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests, none of the exceptions to termination should be applied, and it would be contrary to the child’s best interests to give the mother an extension of time.  We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.

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

            Dayquawne Gates appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm as a felon.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gates’s motion for a mistrial.  And we find Gates was not prejudiced by jury instruction on aiding and abetting because there was substantial evidence to support the State’s other theory—that Gates was the person who fired the fatal shots.  We affirm Gates’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: After bypassing error-preservation concerns, we affirm and find the applicant failed to prove a reasonable probability he would have demanded a trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (17 pages)

            Owo Bol appeals his convictions for attempted murder, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, and willful injury causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because sufficient evidence exists to support the verdicts, the jury verdicts are not inconsistent, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to sever Bol’s case, statements made by defendants whose cases were severed from Bol’s were not hearsay, there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence about complex criminal investigations, and no juror bias was established, we affirm.