2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

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

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two children.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother did not challenge termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2023), so we summarily conclude there is clear and convincing evidence for termination under that section.  Termination is in the children’s best interests because of the mother’s inability to provide these children with safety and a permanent home.  The permissive exception in section 232.116(3)(a) is inapplicable because the children are not in the legal custody of a relative, and we do not find that the need for termination will no longer exist in six months.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, Daniel L. Block, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J.  (21 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights raising six distinct arguments.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the father’s arguments meritorious in three respects.  First, we agree that the guardian ad litem’s reports did not comply with statutory requirements and cannot be relied on to support the termination order.  Second, we find the father was making sufficient progress in the case to warrant an extension of six months to work toward reunification.  Third, we find the department should have performed additional drug testing to determine whether the father’s mental-health medications were giving false positive results as part of its obligation to make reasonable efforts toward reunifying the family.  So we reverse the termination order and remand for further proceedings.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because I would find error was not preserved on the guardian ad litem issue and I believe the majority’s remedy suggestion carries negative consequences contrary to legislative intent, I dissent in part.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, the mother to three children and the father to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of both parents’ rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Lars G. Anderson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (11 pages)

            Reginald Little appeals his conviction for first-degree murder under a theory of felony murder, with the underlying felony being first-degree robbery.  OPINION HOLDS: We find there is substantial evidence in the record to show first-degree robbery was committed by another person and Little aided and abetted, or engaged in joint criminal conduct, with this person.  We also find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Little’s motion for a new trial.  We affirm Little’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (11 pages)

            Lamont Llyod appeals his conviction for domestic abuse assault, third or subsequent offense, challenging the district court’s denial of his motions in limine and for mistrial.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Deborah Farmer Minot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (9 pages)

            A defendant challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the new-trial motion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for assault causing bodily injury and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, claiming the State presented insufficient evidence of his specific intent for each offense.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Alvonni Stone appeals his convictions for first-degree robbery and first-degree burglary, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Stone’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            D’iona Wilson-Bass appeals the revocation of her deferred judgment and the sentence imposed.  She claims the court incorrectly believed it was adjudicating multiple allegations of probation violations and abused its discretion by considering those prior violations at sentencing and failing to consider mitigating sentencing factors.  OPINION HOLDS: The court understood what probation violations it was to adjudicate.  The court properly considered Wilson-Bass’s prior violations when adjudicating the most recent report of violation because it informed the court what services had already been offered to Wilson-Bass and had been unsuccessful.  The court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Wilson-Bass’s deferred judgment following her violation of the terms of her probation.  The court also did not abuse its discretion when it considered her history of probation violations when imposing sentencing, and it adequately explained why it selected the chosen sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Stacy Ritchie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (6 pages)

            Siobhan Foster appeals the district court’s denial of her application for postconviction relief.  She claims there was not a sufficient factual basis for her guilty plea and her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (3 pages)

            A defendant appeals his criminal convictions, contending the prior testimony of an unavailable witness was improperly admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the State that the defendant failed to preserve error and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tom Reidel and Joel W. Barrows, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (19 pages)

Nicolas Heims appeals his convictions for sexual abuse in the third degree, assault causing bodily injury, willful injury causing bodily injury, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.  He argues his retrial after a mistrial violated his double-jeopardy rights, the court erred by allowing amendment to the trial information, insufficient evidence supports his conviction for criminal mischief, and he should have been granted a new trial on the charges of sexual abuse in the third degree, assault causing bodily injury, and willful injury causing bodily injury because the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the prosecutor did not intentionally goad Heims into moving for a mistrial, retrial did not violate his double-jeopardy rights.  Heims waived any objection to the amendment to the trial information.  His convictions are supported by sufficient evidence.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the weight of the evidence did not preponderate against the convictions for sexual abuse, assault causing bodily injury, and willful injury causing bodily injury.  We affirm Heims’s convictions.