August 2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M. Wright, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J. Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Defendant appeals his convictions for murder in the first degree and domestic abuse assault with a dangerous weapon.  He argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: We determine there was sufficient evidence and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Deborah Farmer Minot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Steven Elliott Jr. appeals his convictions for assault causing bodily injury and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.  He alleges the district court committed four errors: (1) denying his motions to strike two potential jurors; (2) admitting Jackie’s 911 call into evidence; (3) permitting a police officer to testify about the effect of traumatic events on witness memories; and (4) allowing the jury to hear a reference to Elliott getting out of jail.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not err or abuse its discretion, or alternatively that no prejudice resulted from its rulings.  So we affirm the rulings and convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover Grinde, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Alan Lucas appeals the summary dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the summary dismissal of Lucas’s application based on the time bar in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2021).  As a result, we need not consider Lucas’s challenge to the other grounds on which the court granted summary dismissal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan K. Corbin, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  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.  (19 pages)

            Clinton Vanfossen appeals his convictions for electronic or mechanical eavesdropping, preventing apprehension or obstruction of prosecution, and five counts of invasion of privacy–nudity.  Vanfossen challenges the district court’s denial of his motion in limine, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, and the sentence imposed by the court.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm Vanfossen’s convictions, but we vacate the sentencing order and remand for resentencing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Edward Grayson appeals from the district court order granting the State’s motion for summary disposition of his postconviction-relief application.  OPINION HOLDS: Grayson’s application for postconviction relief is time-barred by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2022).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Stacy Ritchie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Robert Wimer challenges the denial of his motion to end the requirement he register as a sex offender.  He argues for the first time on appeal that his continued requirement to register as a sex offender—which is set to last until 2031—constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the requirement to register as a sex offender is not “punishment,” it cannot be cruel and unusual punishment.  We affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Jon and Heather Baedke both appeal the decree dissolving their marriage.  Jon challenges the spousal-support award.  Heather challenges the property division, arguing that the court improperly valued their closely held business by including a ten-percent marketability discount and failed to award interest from the date of the decree on the five annual equalization payments.  OPINION HOLDS: Giving the court’s decision the deference it deserves, we cannot say the spousal support fails to do equity.  The court’s valuation of the business, including the marketability discount, was within the range of permissible evidence.  And neither equity nor Iowa law requires interest on installment equalization payments to begin accruing on the date of the decree.  We decline to award Heather appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (25 pages)

            Anton Khabbaz appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of Rawan Khabbaz on his claims of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and tortious interference with an inheritance.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there are genuine issues of material fact to show Nabil Khabbaz was susceptible to undue influence and that “the result clearly appeared to be the result of undue influence.”  These genuine issues of material fact make summary judgment on Anton’s claims inappropriate.  We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings.  DISSENT ASSERTS: The majority reverses the district court based on issues of disputed fact that Anton never argued to the district court and some he never argued to us either.  But appellate courts are bound by the fundamental principles of the adversarial process and appellate review to decide only the arguments made in and decided by the district court.  And so limited, I cannot say that the district court erred in holding that Anton failed to show any material factual dispute.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (12 pages)

            The defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial and for a continuance to substitute counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court correctly applied the new-trial standard, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Bryan Roche appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Having rejected Roche’s claims of ineffective assistance of criminal trial counsel, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            Ben Rasmussen appeals the property division in the decree dissolving his marriage with Alexis Rasmussen.  He argues that it is inequitable for the district court to order him to pay $20,000 to Alexis for her “lost equity” in a Mercedes Benz that she transferred to him during the marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: Alexis’s “lost equity” is not an asset or debt subject to division.  Nor could a $20,000 payment that makes the property division less equal be an equalization payment.  And so, on our de novo review, we modify the property division to strike Ben’s $20,000 payment obligation to Alexis and otherwise affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Katie Ranes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (3 pages)

            Appellants appeal from a district court order denying a request to remove a co-trustee from two separate trusts.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the appellate brief does not comply with our rules of appellate procedure and does not contain relevant citations to supporting authority, we affirm without further opinion.