2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McCallister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  Langholz, J., takes no part.  (12 pages)

            Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC appeals from the district court’s denial of its application for judicial review of an agency proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: Inmate Calling Solutions waived its statutory-authority challenges by not raising them before submitting a bid.  The parties involved did not violate the terms of the request for proposal.  The decision to issue the notice of intent to a competitor of Inmate Calling Solutions was not arbitrary and capricious, without a rational basis, or an abuse of discretion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Heather Lauber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Tony Hyde appeals his conviction for second-degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hyde’s motion for new trial.  The weight of the evidence does not show that Hyde was justified based on the severity of the beating he administered to an unconscious victim.  And Hyde’s voluntary intoxication cannot reduce a charge of second-degree murder, which does not require proof of specific intent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, John Telleen and Patrick A. McElyea, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part. (5 pages)

            Carlton Douglas appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm as a felon.  He alleges that two jury instructions misstated the law on self-defense and the two charges should have been severed for trial.  He also urges that his appeal is a candidate for plain-error review.  OPINION HOLDS: Douglas’s trial counsel did not preserve error on either issue.  And we can no longer consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.  Finally, we cannot overrule supreme court precedent to adopt plain-error review.  So, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (15 pages)

            A former high school tennis coach, Amie Villarini, appeals a summary judgment ruling dismissing her defamation and wrongful-discharge claims against the Iowa City Community School District arising out of the school district’s online publication of an unabridged video of a public school board meeting, during which two students made purportedly defamatory statements about her.  The school district cross-appeals the denial of its motion to amend its answer to assert a qualified-immunity defense.  OPINION HOLDS: The fair-report privilege defeats Villarini’s defamation claim against the school district because the video recording is an accurate and complete report of an official proceeding.  Villarini’s common-law wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim fails because she has not identified a clearly defined public policy.  And because the district court properly granted summary judgment on the defamation claim, the school district’s motion to amend its answer to raise an additional qualified-immunity defense was properly denied as moot. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Greg W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (17 pages)

            Nicholas Anderson challenges the decree dissolving his marriage to Molly Anderson.  He argues (1) the parties premarital agreement was valid and should have been enforced; (2) the parties should have been awarded joint legal custody instead of giving Molly sole legal custody; (3) the children have been placed in his physical care instead of Molly’s; (4) the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay Molly’s attorney fees and, instead, should have ordered Molly to pay his attorney fees; and (5) Molly should be required to pay his appellate attorney fees.  Molly asks that we affirm the dissolution decree and award her appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Following our review of the property distribution, award of legal custody, award of physical care, and the order that Nicholas pay $30,000 of Molly’s attorney fees, we affirm.  We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Greg Milani, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (17 pages)

            Darrell Jones appeals the district court’s combined forfeiture order forfeiting over $85,000 in U.S. currency seized during two separate searches of his residence.  On appeal, he argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence that all the currency forfeited were the proceeds of marijuana trafficking; (2) the forfeitures violated the Excessive Fine Clauses of the state and federal constitutions; and (3) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over one of the forfeiture actions.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the ruling of the district court, finding that (1) substantial evidence supported the district court’s finding the currency seized during the two searches were proceeds of marijuana trafficking; (2) error was not preserved on Jones’s Excessive Fine Clause arguments; and (3) Jones’s subject matter jurisdiction claim is really a challenge to the district court’s authority, which was waived because it was not raised in the district court. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            Columbia Insurance Group appeals an interlocutory order of the district court denying its motion for summary judgment on John and Deena Dostart’s claim under Iowa Code section 516.1 (2022) for payment of an unsatisfied consumer-fraud judgment against the company’s insureds who constructed the Dostarts’ new home.  Columbia argues the judgment is not covered by the commercial-general-liability insurance policy because: (1) the consumer fraud was not an occurrence under the policy; (2) the consumer fraud fell within the intentional-act exclusion of the policy; and (3) the judgment was not because of property damage.  OPINION HOLDS: This summary-judgment record lacks sufficient evidence to hold that the insurance policy Columbia issued does not cover the consumer-fraud judgment entered in favor of the Dostarts.  The jury verdict, jury instructions, and judgment entry are not enough to show as a matter of law that the judgment was based on intentional conduct that falls outside the definition of occurrence or within the intentional-act exclusion to the insurance policy nor evidence that the judgment was not from property damage. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Cecil Williamson Jr. appeals the dismissal of his petition.  We agree with the district court that Williamson failed to state a civil claim for which relief could be granted.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no legal error in the district court’s decision, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

            After a jury found him guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, Jon Dieckmann appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in four ways: (1) by not introducing evidence that he purchased business cards to show he was soliciting jobs as a handyman; (2) by not moving for mistrial after the homeowner testified to inadmissible hearsay; (3) by not objecting to the marshaling instruction for attempted burglary in the second degree; and (4) through cumulative error.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review, we find that denial of relief was proper on all four claims.  So, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Margaret Reyes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (5 pages)

            Anthony Hernandez appeals his judgment and sentence after he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance.  He raises seven errors of the district court.  OPINION HOLDS:  We address the sentencing errors and affirm.  But the other errors go to his guilty plea.  Although we have jurisdiction, we lack authority to hear those claims.  So we affirm the judgment and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

            An employee appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer on his national-origin discrimination claim finding his agency complaint was emailed untimely.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s rules setting an emailing deadline of 4:30 p.m. improperly trimmed the 300-day window for filing complaints under the Iowa Civil Rights Act, we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Elizabeth Dupuich, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            Parents of a deceased University of Iowa student assert claims against the State stemming from the student’s death from hypothermia during a polar vortex.  They appeal an order granting summary judgment in the State’s favor.  They argue that the district court incorrectly concluded that discretionary-function immunity applies to this action, and they argue that the district court abused its discretion when it struck an expert report filed after the deadline because it was a supplemental report.  OPINION HOLDS: We elect to affirm on an alternate basis urged by the State and conclude that the parents failed to generate a question of material fact relating to factual causation.  We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it struck the expert report because it was not a supplemental report and it was untimely.