2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Stacy Ritchie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Robert Wimer challenges the denial of his motion to end the requirement he register as a sex offender.  He argues for the first time on appeal that his continued requirement to register as a sex offender—which is set to last until 2031—constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the requirement to register as a sex offender is not “punishment,” it cannot be cruel and unusual punishment.  We affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Jon and Heather Baedke both appeal the decree dissolving their marriage.  Jon challenges the spousal-support award.  Heather challenges the property division, arguing that the court improperly valued their closely held business by including a ten-percent marketability discount and failed to award interest from the date of the decree on the five annual equalization payments.  OPINION HOLDS: Giving the court’s decision the deference it deserves, we cannot say the spousal support fails to do equity.  The court’s valuation of the business, including the marketability discount, was within the range of permissible evidence.  And neither equity nor Iowa law requires interest on installment equalization payments to begin accruing on the date of the decree.  We decline to award Heather appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (25 pages)

            Anton Khabbaz appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of Rawan Khabbaz on his claims of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and tortious interference with an inheritance.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there are genuine issues of material fact to show Nabil Khabbaz was susceptible to undue influence and that “the result clearly appeared to be the result of undue influence.”  These genuine issues of material fact make summary judgment on Anton’s claims inappropriate.  We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings.  DISSENT ASSERTS: The majority reverses the district court based on issues of disputed fact that Anton never argued to the district court and some he never argued to us either.  But appellate courts are bound by the fundamental principles of the adversarial process and appellate review to decide only the arguments made in and decided by the district court.  And so limited, I cannot say that the district court erred in holding that Anton failed to show any material factual dispute.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (12 pages)

            The defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for new trial and for a continuance to substitute counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court correctly applied the new-trial standard, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Bryan Roche appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Having rejected Roche’s claims of ineffective assistance of criminal trial counsel, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (7 pages)

            Ben Rasmussen appeals the property division in the decree dissolving his marriage with Alexis Rasmussen.  He argues that it is inequitable for the district court to order him to pay $20,000 to Alexis for her “lost equity” in a Mercedes Benz that she transferred to him during the marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: Alexis’s “lost equity” is not an asset or debt subject to division.  Nor could a $20,000 payment that makes the property division less equal be an equalization payment.  And so, on our de novo review, we modify the property division to strike Ben’s $20,000 payment obligation to Alexis and otherwise affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Katie Ranes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (3 pages)

            Appellants appeal from a district court order denying a request to remove a co-trustee from two separate trusts.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the appellate brief does not comply with our rules of appellate procedure and does not contain relevant citations to supporting authority, we affirm without further opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Darin Peterson appeals his two convictions for second-degree sexual abuse.  He raises four claims: (1) he contends the court improperly instructed the jury on the intent element of the offenses; (2) he asserts counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the erroneous instruction; (3) he accuses the State of failing to disclose evidence favorable to him; and (4) he argues that prosecutorial misconduct denied him a fair trial.  OPINION HOLDS: We find that the instruction did not prejudice Peterson and we lack authority to hear the ineffective-assistance claim.  For the third and fourth claims, Peterson failed to preserve error.  So, we affirm the convictions. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Chicchelly, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, J. (11 pages)

            Ethan Orton appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of first-degree murder as a juvenile offender.  OPINION HOLDS: The sentencing court met the requirements of Miller/Lyle/Roby, applied the presumption against a minimum term of incarceration, and considered the mitigating juvenile sentencing factors, and the court provided sufficient detail for us to exercise our review of the record.  Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (16 pages)

            Kendra and Jeffrey Levine, individually and as next friends of their minor daughter, appeal the dismissal of their claims against Michael and Heidi Boyd and their minor son on summary judgment.  The Levines contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with the parent-child relationship, false imprisonment, negligence, negligent supervision, and parental responsibility for the actions of a minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we conclude the undisputed facts establish that the Boyds are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm the district court’s ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Joscela Holloway appeals the sentences imposed after her guilty pleas to twenty-three offenses.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            A defendant argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is no preemption of the city ordinances by state statutes, we affirm.