2024 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (11 pages)

            A juvenile appeals the juvenile court’s ruling that he committed the delinquent act of sexual abuse in the second degree in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3 (2024).  The juvenile contends insufficient evidence was presented to support the juvenile court’s ruling.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, Alan Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (16 pages)

            A jury found Andrew Karvel guilty of second-degree murder.  He challenges the conviction, arguing (1) substantial evidence does not support his conviction, arguing the State failed to prove he strangled the decedent, that the decedent died as a result of strangulation, or that he acted with malice aforethought (2) the district court wrongly admitted prior bad acts evidence against him; and (3) the district court should have granted his motion for new trial based on improper jury instructions, misconduct by the prosecutor, and the verdict being contrary to the greater weight of the credible evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding none of Karvel’s claims meritorious, we affirm Karvel’s conviction.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages)

    A taxpayer appeals the judicial review decision affirming the director of the Iowa Department of Revenue and denying its request to keep its tax protest confidential under Iowa Code section 22.7 (2021), the Open Records Act.  OPINION HOLDS: On our review of this administrative appeal, we agree with the district court and the agency that the documents are not categorically exempt from public disclosure under Iowa Code section 22.7, subsections 6 and 18.  Because we agree with that outcome, we affirm.
 

             Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            Jamarrion James Davis appeals after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Davis is guilty of first-degree murder.  II. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a recorded phone call Davis made from jail or evidence of his motive for the shooting.  The evidence was relevant, and the probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton and Phillip J. Tabor, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Tabor, C.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (8 pages)

            Vanessa Gale was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, second offense.  On appeal, Gale argues the evidence should have been suppressed due to an illegal seizure and asserts the imposed sentence is illegal because she did not have the predicate conviction to enhance the charges.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s findings that the seizure of Gale was lawful, and the resulting evidence was admissible.  We deny her challenge to the proof of her prior conviction of the predicate offense.  Her convictions and resulting sentence are supported by the record.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (5 pages)

            Marlon LaMonte Maclin Sr. appeals the district court’s evidentiary ruling, contending that witness testimony should have been excluded.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary ruling, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (8 pages)

            The plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his negligence petition against the defendant for failure to allege that the law on which the lawsuit is based is “clearly established.”  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the plaintiff’s petition specifically pleaded and set forth clearly established claims, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A plaintiff appeals from dismissal of her petition alleging public-records violations against a county and county supervisor.  OPINION HOLDS: The dismissal of claims alleging violations of the county’s policy was unchallenged for purposes of this litigation and we affirm their dismissal. But the district court’s ruling does not explain why it dismissed the alleged statutory violations and we decline to decide that question in the first instance on appeal.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (12 pages)

            A mother appeals from a modification ruling placing physical care of her child with the father.  She challenges the district court’s weighing of the evidence and pertinent factors, contests an underlying juvenile‑court ruling, and seeks attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Based largely on the district court’s credibility findings and the mother’s failure to preserve error on her evidentiary complaints, we affirm and deny the mother’s request for attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (18 pages)

            A former husband appeals the denial of his petition to modify legal custody and physical care concerning a minor child, the admissibility of evidence below, and the division of assets of retirement accounts and proceeds after the sale of the marital home.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the former spouses can no longer meaningfully coparent, the former husband did not meet his burden to prove he was the superior caretaker to receive physical care of the child, the district court properly limited admissible evidence to post-decree evidence, and sale proceeds of the home and retirement accounts were properly divided, we affirm and award the former wife appellate attorney fees. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  ORDER VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

    A father appeals the district court order modifying his child-support obligation under Iowa Code chapter 252H (2024).  He contends that he did not receive a fair hearing and the court’s computation is not supported by the record.  Both parents ask for appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record, we agree that the hearing was incomplete and the calculations are inaccurate.  We thus vacate the modification order and remand for the court to recalculate the father’s child-support obligation after a full hearing.  But we decline to award attorney fees to either party.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Jennifer Miller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            The Estate of John Lavery, his wife, and two daughters appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing their gross-negligence claims against Lavery’s coworker, Steve Campbell, arising from Lavery’s death at work.  OPINION HOLDS: Plaintiffs’ gross-negligence claims against Campbell fail because they have shown no evidence from which a jury could find that Campbell knew that Lavery’s injury was probable rather than just possible from the continued operation of the hydraulic motor test stand after another employee raised concerns to Campbell and Campbell successfully operated the test stand without incident.  The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Campbell.