2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven Guiter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four-year-old daughter and six-year-old son.  She contends the State did not prove the children could not be returned to her custody and it was not in their best interests to terminate her rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence that the mother’s lack of protective capacity regarding her paramour, who is a registered sex offender, would expose the children to the risk of harm.  And after two years out of parental care, moving toward adoption is int the children’s best interests.  Thus, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  The father contests that the statutory grounds for termination have been met.  Both parents contend termination is not in the best interests of the child, ask us to consider a permissive exception to termination, and request more time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the statutory grounds for termination are satisfied for each parent and that the best interests of the child support termination.  Further, we decline to exercise any exceptions or extensions to termination, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Rachael E. Seymour, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights, claiming the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the children’s best interests, the court should apply a permissive exception to preclude termination, and a guardianship should have been entered in lieu of termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm both appeals.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother appeals the adjudication of her four-year-old as a child in need of assistance.  OPINON HOLDS: Because we find the State established the statutory grounds for adjudication and the court’s aid was necessary to enforce services, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, Jessica Noll, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            An incarcerated father appeals the termination of his parental rights, raising a reasonable-efforts challenge.  OPINION HOLDS: Because he did not request additional services and we find the efforts provided reasonable under the circumstances, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O’Brien County, David C. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Carlos Martin Sebastian appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: The arresting deputy reasonably conveyed the implied consent warnings to Martin Sebastian before he submitted to chemical testing.  To the extent that Martin Sebastian challenges the admissibility of field sobriety test results, his arguments go to the weight of the results, not the admissibility.  The district court correctly denied the motion to suppress.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Richard H. Davidson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (15 pages)

            Randy Cue appeals the denial of his applications for DNA profiling and postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Cue has not established his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance, and his application did not meet the requirements for the court to order further DNA testing.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A defendant appeals his conviction for robbery in the second degree.  He contends the State offered insufficient evidence to prove the assault or threat alternative of robbery.  OPINION HOLDS: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find the record contains sufficient evidence to support the conviction.  Thus, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  SENTENCE AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (8 pages)

            Trisha Kountkofsky appeals the restitution order requiring her to pay victim pecuniary damages and category “B” restitution.  OPINION HOLDS: The sentencing court listed incorrect code sections in its restitution order, and we remand with directions to enter a nunc pro tunc order correcting those errors.  We do not address the entry of victim pecuniary damages as Kountkofsky did not exhaust her remedies for challenging them in the district court, and we affirm the category “B” restitution determination as Kountkofsky failed to file a financial affidavit and waived her right to a hearing on her reasonable ability to pay.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Richard B. Clogg, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  Concurrence in part and dissent in part by Ahlers, J. (19 pages)

            Jeff Osborne appeals the district court’s property distribution, valuation, and tax liability assignment following entry of a dissolution decree.  Jaime Ocean cross-appeals the spousal support award and property distribution in the decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the property distribution, valuations, and tax liability assignment are equitable, modify the spousal support award, and affirm as modified. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS:  I dissent in part because I find the property distribution to be inequitable and would value an IPERS account using the Benson formula when dividing the parties’ assets.  As my concurrence with the majority’s modification of the spousal-support award is contingent on also modifying the property division as I proposed, I also dissent as to the change to the spousal-support award.  However, I concur with the majority’s decision to deny the cross-appeal challenging the dissolution decree’s life insurance provision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, John J. Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Buller, J. (11 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for murder in the first degree and child endangerment resulting in death.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the convictions, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (11 pages)

            Antonio Kitch appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty plea to neglect or abandonment of a dependent person and Alford plea to child endangerment resulting in bodily injury.  OPINION HOLDS: The sentencing court considered individual circumstances and factors related to Kitch and did not rely on a fixed sentencing scheme.  Although the court made comments about its belief in God, that belief did not influence the sentences imposed.  The court did consider mitigating factors and was not required to list all mitigating factors considered.  For these reasons, we affirm.