2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (10 pages)

            A father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his child under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the father’s own choices and circumstances, not the actions of the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, kept him from caring for his child; the child could not be returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing; termination is in the child’s best interests; and there are no statutory impediments to termination; we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Monty Franklin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no cause for reversal, we affirm the termination of the mother’s rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (9 pages)

            The mother of D.A and G.P. and the father of G.P. separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both the mother’s and father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (7 pages)

            The mother of one-year-old M.N. appeals from the dispositional order in the child-in-need-of-assistance proceedings, challenging the juvenile court’s decision the child could not yet be returned to her custody.  OPINION HOLDS: Because M.N. would face further adjudicatory harm if returned to the mother’s custody at this time, we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Mark F. Schlenker, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She contends the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court and termination is not in the best interests of the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  Both challenge the statutory grounds for termination.  The mother further claims termination is not in the child’s best interests due to the bond she shares with the child and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick J. McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children.  OPINON HOLDS: Termination is in the children’s best interests.  We do not grant the mother any additional time to work towards reunification.

            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.