2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Monty Franklin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children, claiming the State failed to prove the grounds for termination relied on by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A father, mother, and their teenaged son separately appeal a juvenile court order terminating parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: After a careful review of the record, we reach the same conclusions as the district court and affirm its ruling.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Greg W. Steensland, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Bower, S.J.*.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A civil defendant appeals the district court’s finding of a boundary by acquiescence and easement by prescription.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the district court’s findings and remand.

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

            DeVaris Perry appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Perry has not proved he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, we affirm the denial of his application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Buller, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            A defendant seeks to vacate his guilty plea, alleging the district court erroneously denied his post-plea motion for adjudication of law points.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Clark failed to show good cause to pursue a direct appeal from his guilty plea, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, 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 Tabor, P.J. (14 pages)

            A jury convicted Quarian Moore of first-degree murder and attempted murder for shooting two people at a Des Moines intersection in November 2021.  Moore was just shy of his eighteenth birthday at the time of the crime.  The district court imposed a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of twenty-five years.  Moore now argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he was the shooter and that the court improperly applied the juvenile sentencing factors.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding substantial evidence that Moore shot and killed Dean Deng and wounded B.C., and observing no abuse of discretion in Moore’s sentencing, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (17 pages)

            Julie Schley appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing her claims against Sioux County, Sioux County Deputy Sheriff Stan Oostra, Gary Schley, and the estates of Donald and Margery Schley.  She contends the district court erred in (1) granting the summary judgment motion filed by Sioux County and Deputy Oostra on her claim for false arrest; and (2) determining that her claims against the remaining defendants were barred by the “wrongful conduct” rule.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding (1) the undisputed facts establish that Deputy Oostra had probable cause under Iowa Code section 664A.6(1) (2017) to believe Julie violated a no-contact order; and (2) the district court correctly determined that Julie’s claims against the remaining defendants were barred by the “wrongful conduct” rule. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy, 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 Greer, J. (21 pages)

            Nathen Cameron appeals his convictions and sentences for assault causing serious injury and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony on domestic abuse dynamics to assist the jury in understanding the first-degree-murder charge of which Cameron was eventually acquitted, the verdict for assault causing serious injury is supported by substantial evidence that Cameron either caused the victim to fall from the balcony—fracturing her skull and spine—or hit her, breaking her kneecap, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering that Cameron failed to accept responsibility for physically assaulting the victim.  Because the district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (13 pages)

            On discretionary review, the State challenges the order suppressing evidence obtained following a traffic stop.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The district court erred by ignoring a published decision of this court holding that law enforcement may obtain a search warrant in lieu of invoking the statutory implied consent procedure to obtain a sample for chemical testing.  The district court’s ruling also conflicts with a recent Iowa Supreme Court decision holding that the Iowa Code authorizes search warrants for collection of bodily specimens and doing so does not violate due process and equal protection rights.  II. The officer was not required to inform the defendant of his Miranda rights before questioning him during a traffic stop because the defendant was not in custody.  We reverse the suppression ruling and remand for further proceedings. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nicholas Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A defendant appeals his sentence, alleging the district court failed to adequately state on the record the basis for the sentence imposed.  OPINION HOLDS: Under our supreme court precedent, succinct sentencing explanations satisfy Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(2)(g).  Because we find the sentencing court’s explanation sufficient under this permissive standard, we affirm.      

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            Elmer Scheckel appeals from the dismissal of his suit seeking to invalidate a tax deed of a property that he had owned.  He argues that the district judge should have recused himself and the court lacked jurisdiction.  The City of Oelwein seeks to dismiss the appeal because Scheckel did not petition for a writ of certiorari to challenge the recusal decision.  OPINION HOLDS: We have appellate jurisdiction over this appeal because Scheckel appealed from a final order or judgment.  Scheckel failed to preserve error on the recusal issue because he did not raise it until after the district court ruled against him, dismissing his suit.  And the court did not lack jurisdiction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (11 pages)

Jerry Guy Jr. appeals his conviction for lascivious acts with a child.  He raises evidentiary challenges and argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Guy failed to preserve error on his hearsay challenge.  Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting exhibits 1A–1D and substantial evidence supports Guy’s conviction, we affirm.