August 2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

            Christopher Yenger seeks postconviction relief from his two felony murder convictions.  He alleges his trial attorneys were ineffective for not calling an expert witness to challenge the State’s arson evidence.  The district court denied relief, finding Yenger failed to show that the attorneys’ strategic decisions breached an essential duty or prejudiced Yenger’s defense.  OPINION HOLDS: In our de novo review, we reach the same conclusions and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lucas County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Shawn Shelton appeals the grant of summary disposition of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: As there is no genuine issue of material fact, the district court correctly granted the State’s motion for summary disposition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of postconviction relief, concluding the applicant did not establish the prejudice prong of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, J.  Opinion by Buller, J. (9 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for robbery in the first degree.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find no abuse of discretion by the district court and no prejudice in any alleged evidentiary error, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers, J., and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (13 pages)

            In this direct appeal, Cody Ruden appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty pleas, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of the plea agreement by the prosecutor.  OPINION HOLDS:  We lack authority to address Ruden’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.  And the State did not breach a promise in arguing for incarceration as agreed to in the plea agreement.  Accordingly, we affirm.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I view the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation as a violation of the plea agreement because the prosecutor failed to adequately endorse the State’s sentencing recommendation and impliedly expressed reservations about the recommendation.  I would vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing before a different judge.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Chad A. Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Tyler Burlage appeals the denial of his petition to vacate the decree dissolving his marriage to Jennifer Helle under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012.  He argues that the district court erred in denying his petition because he failed to show that his grounds for relief were not and could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under rule 1.1004.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Burlage’s grounds for relief were all known to him within the fifteen-day window for filing a motion for a new trial.  And so, the district court did not error in denying Burlage’s petition to vacate the parties’ stipulated dissolution decree.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Langholz, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Adam Smith, M.D.; Adam Smith, M.D., P.C.; and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike an expert and for summary judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the plaintiff failed to submit a timely certificate of merit affidavit from an expert witness licensed to practice in the defendants’ field, we reverse and remand for dismissal of the claims requiring a certificate-of-merit affidavit.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly, and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Leon Brand appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief application, alleging his counsel was ineffective for not appearing at a hearing to reconsider his sentence and for not investigating the disciplinary report that formed the basis for the court’s decision to decline to reconsider his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Brand has not proved his counsel breached an essential duty by failing to appear and argue at a nonexistent hearing or by failing to investigate a prison disciplinary report.  He also failed to establish prejudice.  As a result, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Anthony Stoner appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR), alleging his trial counsel failed to inform him of a previous plea offer and that his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to develop the record on that issue.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s dismissal because Stoner has not preserved error on the issue of the previous plea offer, failed to sufficiently state the ways in which PCR counsel was ineffective, and has not alleged any prejudice occurred based on the ineffectiveness of his trial or PCR counsel.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Crystal S. Cronk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Douglas Spurgeon appeals following his convictions for second-degree murder (count I), assault while participating in a felony causing serious injury (count II), and going armed with intent (count III).  Spurgeon contends (1) the greater weight of credible evidence supports a finding someone else’s actions caused the death of Gerald Sapp, so his motion for new trial should have been granted; (2) it was legally inconsistent for the jury to acquit him of first-degree murder but find him guilty of assault while participating in a felony causing serious injury and going armed with intent; and (3) counts II and III should merge with count I.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Spurgeon’s motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence, Spurgeon’s claim that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts is without merit, and counts II and III do not merge with Spurgeon’s conviction for second-degree murder, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Joseph McCarville, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Bower, S.J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion Per Curiam.  Partial dissent by Gamble, S.J.  (27 pages)

            Jason Pirie challenges his conviction and sentence for third-degree theft, an aggravated misdemeanor.  He argues (1) the judge should have granted his motion to recuse based on the judge’s prior representation of Pirie in two criminal matters and a recent statement made by the judge that raised a question regarding his impartiality; (2) the district court erred in allowing hearsay testimony from a police officer during the criminal trial; (3) the district court should have granted his motion for new trial based on the unavailability of a material witness; (4) the district court violated his rights by conducting a remote sentencing proceeding without first obtaining his waiver of the right to in-person sentencing; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a consecutive prison term for the crime of stealing $55 worth of alcohol.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Pirie’s conviction—we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying Pirie’s motion to recuse; while we assume without deciding the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony, it was not reversible error because the evidence of Pirie’s guilt is overwhelming; and we do not consider Pirie’s new-trial argument because he failed to preserve error.  Because Pirie failed to preserve error as was required on his remote-sentencing claim and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence, we affirm Pirie’s sentence.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur with the parts of the per curiam opinion dealing with recusal and unavailability of a witness.  However, I respectfully dissent on the issues of hearsay and remote sentencing.  I would reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial because the district court erroneously admitted implied hearsay on the central issue of identification, which was prejudicial to Pirie.  If I reached the sentencing issue, I would also find Pirie was not required to preserve error on the remote sentencing procedure.  Because I believe the district court did not obtain Pirie’s consent to remote sentencing, I would remand for in-person sentencing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ., but decided by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (22 pages)

            Scheer Agri-Enterprises, Inc., appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Ledger Swine Farms, Inc., and Norsvin USA, LLC, d/b/a Topigs Norsvin USA and dismissing Scheer’s claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and vicarious liabilty.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm.