2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Chad A. Kepros, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (9 pages)

            Tyler Burlage appeals the denial of his petition to vacate the decree dissolving his marriage to Jennifer Helle under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1012.  He argues that the district court erred in denying his petition because he failed to show that his grounds for relief were not and could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under rule 1.1004.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Burlage’s grounds for relief were all known to him within the fifteen-day window for filing a motion for a new trial.  And so, the district court did not error in denying Burlage’s petition to vacate the parties’ stipulated dissolution decree.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Langholz, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (4 pages)

            Adam Smith, M.D.; Adam Smith, M.D., P.C.; and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P. appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to strike an expert and for summary judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the plaintiff failed to submit a timely certificate of merit affidavit from an expert witness licensed to practice in the defendants’ field, we reverse and remand for dismissal of the claims requiring a certificate-of-merit affidavit.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly, and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Leon Brand appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief application, alleging his counsel was ineffective for not appearing at a hearing to reconsider his sentence and for not investigating the disciplinary report that formed the basis for the court’s decision to decline to reconsider his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Brand has not proved his counsel breached an essential duty by failing to appear and argue at a nonexistent hearing or by failing to investigate a prison disciplinary report.  He also failed to establish prejudice.  As a result, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Anthony Stoner appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR), alleging his trial counsel failed to inform him of a previous plea offer and that his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to develop the record on that issue.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s dismissal because Stoner has not preserved error on the issue of the previous plea offer, failed to sufficiently state the ways in which PCR counsel was ineffective, and has not alleged any prejudice occurred based on the ineffectiveness of his trial or PCR counsel.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Crystal S. Cronk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Douglas Spurgeon appeals following his convictions for second-degree murder (count I), assault while participating in a felony causing serious injury (count II), and going armed with intent (count III).  Spurgeon contends (1) the greater weight of credible evidence supports a finding someone else’s actions caused the death of Gerald Sapp, so his motion for new trial should have been granted; (2) it was legally inconsistent for the jury to acquit him of first-degree murder but find him guilty of assault while participating in a felony causing serious injury and going armed with intent; and (3) counts II and III should merge with count I.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Spurgeon’s motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence, Spurgeon’s claim that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts is without merit, and counts II and III do not merge with Spurgeon’s conviction for second-degree murder, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Joseph McCarville, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Bower, S.J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion Per Curiam.  Partial dissent by Gamble, S.J.  (27 pages)

            Jason Pirie challenges his conviction and sentence for third-degree theft, an aggravated misdemeanor.  He argues (1) the judge should have granted his motion to recuse based on the judge’s prior representation of Pirie in two criminal matters and a recent statement made by the judge that raised a question regarding his impartiality; (2) the district court erred in allowing hearsay testimony from a police officer during the criminal trial; (3) the district court should have granted his motion for new trial based on the unavailability of a material witness; (4) the district court violated his rights by conducting a remote sentencing proceeding without first obtaining his waiver of the right to in-person sentencing; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a consecutive prison term for the crime of stealing $55 worth of alcohol.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Pirie’s conviction—we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying Pirie’s motion to recuse; while we assume without deciding the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony, it was not reversible error because the evidence of Pirie’s guilt is overwhelming; and we do not consider Pirie’s new-trial argument because he failed to preserve error.  Because Pirie failed to preserve error as was required on his remote-sentencing claim and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence, we affirm Pirie’s sentence.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur with the parts of the per curiam opinion dealing with recusal and unavailability of a witness.  However, I respectfully dissent on the issues of hearsay and remote sentencing.  I would reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial because the district court erroneously admitted implied hearsay on the central issue of identification, which was prejudicial to Pirie.  If I reached the sentencing issue, I would also find Pirie was not required to preserve error on the remote sentencing procedure.  Because I believe the district court did not obtain Pirie’s consent to remote sentencing, I would remand for in-person sentencing.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  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.  (22 pages)

            Scheer Agri-Enterprises, Inc., appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Ledger Swine Farms, Inc., and Norsvin USA, LLC, d/b/a Topigs Norsvin USA and dismissing Scheer’s claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and vicarious liabilty.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard en banc, but decided by Tabor, C.J., Greer, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (18 pages)

            Bradford Manatt appeals the summary judgment order finding he must offer his shares of a company to his brother, Anthony Manatt under a mandatory buy-sell agreement.  Brad argues there are genuine issues of material fact about the enforceability of the buy-sell agreement.  He also argues his affirmative defenses require determination by a jury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record reveals no jury question on the enforceability of the buy-sell agreement and Brad did not preserve error on affirmative defenses, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (8 pages)

            Isaiah Duffield appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree and the ruling on his motion for a new trial, arguing that insufficient evidence supports his conviction and that the court applied the wrong standard when deciding whether to grant a new trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find sufficient evidence supports the conviction and the district court applied the correct standard in ruling on Duffield’s motion for new trial, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (11 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district did not err in admitting the child’s forensic interview or abuse its discretion in ruling on the motion for new trial, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A party appeals the denial of his petition to open a small estate in probate.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the petition only challenges one of the independent grounds for the denial of his petition, we affirm the denial under the unchallenged grounds.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I join the court’s well-reasoned opinion in full but write separately to emphasize three points.  First, our opinion affirming does not prevent Piper from filing a new petition.  Second, we do not decide that a party must be represented by an attorney to petition to open administration of a small probate estate.  And third—contrary to Piper’s assumption—it does not appear that the district court dismissed his petition because he lacked an attorney either.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Lars G. Anderson, Andrew Chappel, and Chad Kepros, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Appellant argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the Appellant’s failure to file a resistance.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding summary judgment was proper, we affirm.