2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover Grinde, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (14 pages)

    John Sanders appeals his convictions for assault causing bodily injury, assault with intent to commit serious injury, and two counts of second-degree robbery.  Sanders challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the marshaling instruction on second-degree robbery.  Sanders further claims the court erred by denying his motion to continue sentencing and by failing to ensure a valid waiver of his right to testify.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (19 pages)

    Bryan Watkins appeals his convictions for two counts of assault causing bodily injury, second-degree sexual abuse, and willful injury causing serious injury as a habitual offender.  He claims his waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.  He argues the two counts of assault causing bodily injury should merge as should his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse and willful injury causing serious injury as a habitual offender.  Finally, Watkins challenges the application of the habitual-offender enhancement to his conviction for willful injury causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Watkins’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.  And there was no error, nor was an illegal sentence imposed, by applying the habitual offender enhancement.  Because the jury made no finding of separate acts to support Watkins’s conviction of two counts of assault causing bodily injury, those counts merge into one count.  Watkins’s convictions for second-degree sexual abuse and willful injury causing serious injury do not merge.  We remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order merging the two counts of assault resulting in bodily injury.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Mary Ann Brown, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A defendant who pleaded guilty to a felony offense and later had a deferred judgment revoked appeals his plea and sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defendant has not alleged he would not have pleaded guilty but for the alleged defects in his plea, we lack authority to vacate his plea under Iowa Code section 814.29.  As for his sentence, we agree the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend the criminal fine be suspended.  Therefore, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David F. Staudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (10 pages)

    Brian Ketelsen appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  He claims that he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel, some errors amounted to structural error, he should receive a new trial due to juror misconduct, and the PCR court’s conclusions were based on a faulty fundamental premise.  OPINION HOLDS: Ketelsen cannot establish any ineffective assistance claims or structural error.  His juror misconduct claims fail because he does not allege an extraneous influence on the deliberative process.  The PCR court’s conclusions were not based on a faulty fundamental premise.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Katie Ranes, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Karen Barnhart appeals the denial of her petition to admit her mother’s will into probate.  She argues the court erred in holding that the will was not signed by two witnesses and that the attached self-proving affidavit was not properly executed because it was cross-notarized by each of the signing witnesses.  OPINION HOLDS: The witness signatures on the self-proving affidavit—which was attached to the will in sequentially numbered pages and dated the same day as testator’s signature on the will—satisfy the statutory requirement for witnesses to sign the will.  The district court thus erred in denying admission of the will on this basis and in refusing to accept further proof of the subscribing witnesses to remedy any defect in the self-proving affidavit.  We do not decide whether the district court was correct in its interpretation of the notarization requirement because regardless the affidavit does not meet the statutory requirement for a self-proving affidavit.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Stacy Ritchie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Pursuant to a plea agreement, Matthew Clarke pled guilty to and was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon in 1992.  Clarke filed his third application for postconviction relief in 2022, and the district court summarily dismissed it because it was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations and Clarke was unable to articulate any newly discovered facts or a new ground of law that allowed him to avoid the time-bar.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered all of Clarke’s arguments that were properly preserved and adequately briefed on appeal, we agree with the district court that Clarke failed to establish an exception to the statute of limitations that applies to his third application for PCR.  Summary dismissal was appropriate.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J. (7 pages)

            Austin Garcia-Shoemaker appeals his conviction for third-degree sexual abuse.  He argues that the district court should have granted his motion for a new trial because the jury’s conclusion that any sex act with his cousin had been “by force or against the will” of his cousin was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and Garcia-Shoemaker has not shown that the weight of the evidence preponderates heavily against the guilty verdict.  The testimony of the cousin, the DNA evidence on the clothing and bedding, and the medical examination all support the finding of guilt.  We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Garcia-Shoemaker’s motion for a new trial.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Tod Deck, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Badding, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

    Rodney Jackson appeals from the summary disposition of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Jackson failed to present any evidence to generate a question of material fact, so the postconviction-relief court correctly granted the State’s motion for summary judgment.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  Dissent by Potterfield, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Joellen Eckert appeals the denial of her motion to suppress.  She asserts her arrest was not supported by probable cause and thus the search of her purse was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we determine the officers had probable cause to arrest Eckert and affirm the district’s court denial of her motion to suppress. DISSENT ASSERTS: While I agree that officers had probable cause to arrest Eckert, I would not end the analysis there.  I understand her challenge on appeal to encompass a broader question—does application of the search-incident-to-arrest exception support the warrantless search of her purse when neither officer safety nor destruction of evidence was a concern?  Because I conclude it does not, I respectfully dissent from the majority. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Kristi Baughn appeals the award of reimbursement spousal support to Jeremy Pack in the decree dissolving their marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that because Jeremy did not make economic sacrifices or contributions to Kristi’s advanced degree, he is not entitled to an award of reimbursement spousal support.  We modify the dissolution decree to remove that award and its offset against Jeremy’s share of the marital debt.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Alan Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (20 pages)

            Sharon Kellogg, a transferee of a membership interest in a limited liability company, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her petition to vacate a deed conveying real estate owned by the company.  She claims (1) there was no “valid basis for the substitution” of judges under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1802(1), and the court erred in (2) failing to recognize her member status as the personal representative of a deceased member, (3) holding that the managing member did not breach his fiduciary duty to her or violate the operating agreement by selling the company’s real estate, (4) approving a discounted value for her interest in the company, and (5) failing to consider her oppression claim.  OPINION HOLDS: Having found no reversible error on the claims presented to us, we affirm the district court’s ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Greg W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Heard by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Gamble, S.J. Opinion by Buller, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Langholz, J.  (18 pages)

            Freemont County residents appeal the district court’s order dismissing all claims on a motion to dismiss regarding county ordinances and a proposed wind turbine project against the county and board of supervisors.  OPINION HOLDS: All of the claims other than those alleging open‑meetings violations should have been brought by certiorari and were therefore untimely.  The public‑meetings claims, although pled thinly, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.  We affirm dismissal of all claims but the alleged public‑meetings violations, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I join in all the court’s well-reasoned opinion, including its decision not to reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim that the repealer clause of the wind ordinance violates Iowa Code section 331.302(4).  I write separately to emphasize that no one should read the court’s opinion as blessing the wind ordinance’s general repealer clause.  In a case where it were necessary to do so, I would not hesitate to hold the repealer clause violates section 331.302(4) because it fails to specify any particular provision that is repealed.