2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Hunter W. Thorpe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e), (h), and (I) (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s order, finding the grounds for termination have been met, the termination is in the child’s best interest, and no exception to termination applies.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Ackley, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            David John Lehmann appeals both his conviction and sentence for lascivious acts with a child, alleging multiple improper evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, constitutional violations, verdict inconsistency, and an abuse of sentencing discretion.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court abused its discretion by admitting prior‑bad‑acts evidence and Lehmann’s constitutional right to be present was violated, we reverse and remand consistent with this opinion without considering the merits of his other arguments.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Langholz, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Douglas Kelley—the executor of a trust beneficiary’s estate—appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the estate’s claim that the trustee, Savings Bank Primghar, negligently breached its fiduciary duty to the beneficiary.  OPINION HOLDS:  The bank did not violate any duty owed to the beneficiary as trustee under Iowa law.  Because the beneficiary was provided a copy of the trust’s terms as required by the Iowa Trust Code and he never asked for any more information from the bank, it complied with all its duties under Iowa law.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert and Scott D. Rosenberg, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (17 pages)

Michael Klein appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to defendants, dismissing three of his claims, and appeals the district court’s denial of his partial new trial motion.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we no longer recognize standalone causes of action for constitutional tort violations under article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Klein’s constitutional claims.  The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Klein supports the district court’s ruling on Klein’s false arrest, malicious prosecution, and battery claims.  We conclude the district court did not err in denying a new trial based on the evidentiary grounds raised.  And as the attorney-misconduct claim was not preserved for appeal, we do not reach the merits of such claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (15 pages)

            Parties to a commercial lease agreement signed one month before the start of the COVID‑19 global pandemic appeal the judgment entered by the district court for nonperformance.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The record supports the trial court’s finding that nonperformance was not excused by impossibility or frustration of performance because any impossibility or frustration of performance was both temporary and partial.  The record also supports its finding that a lease assignment to a third party and the property owner’s settlement with that third party did not release the personal guarantors from their obligation under lease.  Because a claim that the property owner converted the lease deposit to benefit a third party was tied to performance of the lease, the district court properly denied it.  We affirm the award of trial attorney fees.  II. Because a lease provision about the due date for the first month of rent is reasonably open to interpretation, the district court did not err in construing it against the property owner.  We affirm the amount of damages awarded for breach of contract and remand to the district court to determine a reasonable award of appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Charles Sinnard, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (7 pages)

            Harold Meyer appeals the denial of his request to modify his status on the sex offender registry.  The district court determined that Meyer was not eligible for modification under Iowa Code section 692A.128(2)(b) (2022) because he did not complete required sex offender treatment programs.  Meyer argues that he was not required to attend sex offender treatment while incarcerated under the reasoning of two Iowa Supreme Court cases from 2009 addressing eligibility for earned time.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the determination that Meyer refused to participate in required sex offender treatment, he did not meet the threshold test for modification.  We thus affirm the district court’s denial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Colleen Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            Kenneth Adams appeals the denial of his second application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Adams cannot establish any of his attorneys breached an essential duty, so his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (9 pages)

            After a warrantless search of Walter Baylor’s vehicle, the district court initially granted Baylor’s motion to suppress, concluding the officers conducted an improper inventory search.  The State moved to reconsider the ruling.  Applying the automobile exception, the district court then reversed course and denied the motion to suppress.  Baylor appeals, arguing the district court’s initial ruling applying State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794 (Iowa 2018) was correct.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there was probable cause to search the vehicle once an officer observed a digital scale with residue in an open glove box, so the automobile exception applied to search the vehicle without a warrant.  We affirm the district court’s ruling denying Baylor’s motion to suppress and affirm his conviction and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  Partial dissent by Ahlers, P.J.  (14 pages)

            Ronald Christopher Williams appeals the economic provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Beverly Behary Williams, contending the property distribution and spousal support are inequitable.  OPINION HOLDS: Because both provisions are equitable, we affirm.  We also award Beverly appellate attorney fees, but because we lack an attorney‑fees affidavit, we remand to the district court to determine the appropriate amount.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Although I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the property distribution and award of traditional spousal support, I would not affirm the amount of the spousal support award or the award of appellate attorney fees.  In my view, the statutory factors support a smaller monthly spousal-support award.  As I would modify the spousal support amount, I would also deny the wife’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Willie Taylor Sr. appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his guilty pleas over three separate cases.  Taylor challenges the district court’s conclusions that he failed to prove he was under duress at the time of his guilty pleas, claiming the PCR court disregarded much of his evidence; argues he was wrongly advised about the sentence he would receive; and claims the probation-revocation court abused its discretion when it imposed the sixty-year sentence that was previously suspended.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that counsel’s actions were consistent with a reasonably competent attorney and the probation-revocation court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Taylor’s probation and imposed the previously suspended sentence, we affirm the decision of the PCR court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brendan Greiner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

            Joseph Gentile appeals his sentences following his guilty pleas to unauthorized placement of a global positioning device and criminal mischief.  He contends that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by relying on evidence of “unproven and uncharged” conduct, improperly considering legislative intent, and failing to give sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: Gentile fails to produce clear evidence that the district court considered improper information in reaching its sentencing decision.  And the court gave sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.  Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Craig M. Dreismeier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            A defendant appeals the district court’s determination that he is reasonably able to pay category “B” restitution to the extent of his liquid assets in the amount of $18,800, while the State requests a remand for entry of a nunc pro tunc order to correct the judgment entry to make it consistent with the oral pronouncement of sentence.  OPINION HOLDS:  We affirm, finding no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination of the amount Roberts is reasonably able to pay towards category “B” restitution and concluding the oral and written sentences were consistent.