2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (10 pages)

            David Moffitt appeals the denial of postconviction relief, arguing his criminal defense counsel should have pursued diminished-responsibility and intoxication defenses during his trial on first-degree murder and first-degree robbery charges.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Moffitt failed to develop or obtain a ruling on his intoxication argument below, error is not preserved on that issue.  As for diminished responsibility, counsel did not breach any essential duty in forgoing the defense, as counsel reasonably concluded that the evidence at trial could not support the defense.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Connie Spencer appeals the decree dissolving her eleven-year, later-in-life marriage with David Christiansen.  She argues that the property division is inequitable and that the court should have awarded her traditional spousal support mainly because of her Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis during the marriage.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with Spencer in one respect—she should have been credited for the significant improvements made during the marriage to the home awarded to Christiansen.  So we modify the decree to increase Christiansen’s equalization payment to Spencer by $24,000 to account for her contributions toward improving that home.  But on the remaining issues, we affirm the district court’s decree.  We find it equitable for Christiansen to retain the proceeds of selling his business very early in the marriage, the retirement and investment accounts were fairly divided, and Spencer failed to preserve error on any excess funds set aside for income taxes.  As for spousal support, Spencer leaves the marriage with significant assets and income and has not shown that this is the exceptional case justifying traditional spousal support so far outside the general twenty-year durational threshold.  Finally, we decline Christiansen’s request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            Imere Hall appeals the dismissal of his fourth application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Hall filed his application outside the statute of limitations contained in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2022) and does not raise a ground of law or fact that could not have been raised within the statute of limitations, we affirm the dismissal of his application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, Thomas P. Murphy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers, Badding, Chicchelly, and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (9 pages)

            Vernon Walker appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and possession of marijuana.  He argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict on either count.  OPINION HOLDS: The State presented substantial evidence to support the jury’s findings of guilt on both charges.  Accordingly, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Tabitha Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    The defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating while intoxicated, arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion because the presentence investigation reporter held a fixed policy for its sentencing recommendation, the court “fixated” on his prior vehicle accidents, and the court should have ordered probation rather than incarceration.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning and sentence, so we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard Stochl (unjust-enrichment counterclaims) and John J. Sullivan (quiet-title action), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            Michael and Bonnie Mulhern, executors of the estate of Cecelia Schimmel, appeal the district court’s grants of summary judgment (1) dismissing their quiet-title action under Iowa’s marketable-record-title statute for farmland that Schimmel originally inherited under the Kruger will and (2) ordering them to pay a portion of the crop-share rents received after Schimmel’s death on the Kruger-will remainder beneficiaries’ counterclaims for unjust enrichment.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly granted summary judgment on the estate’s quiet-title claim.  Schimmel inherited only a life estate under the Kruger will.  And the clerk’s certificate of change of title—which did not note that Schimmel’s interest was only a life estate—is not “a conveyance or other title transaction” under the marketable-record-title statute.  So the remainder beneficiaries’ interest in the farmland is not extinguished by that statute.  And because the estate did not preserve its challenges to the court’s method of apportioning the rents between the estate and the remainder beneficiaries for the year Schimmel died, we cannot consider the merits of that ruling on the beneficiaries’ unjust-enrichment counterclaim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Brad and Nancy Worrell appeal the district court’s judgment granting in part and denying in part their claim of adverse possession against Lake Crest Manor Home Owners Association.  They argue that the court erred in refusing to find their claim established for an additional parcel of land because their use of the additional land was “factually the same” as the smaller parcel of land for which the court found they established adverse possession.  OPINION HOLDS: Lake Crest Manor Home Owners Association does not cross-appeal.  So whether the Worrells proved all the requirements for adverse possession for that smaller parcel is not before us.  And we agree with the district court that the Worrells did not prove adverse possession for the additional parcel because the record lacks clear and positive proof that they had a good-faith claim of right to the land or that their use rose to the level of hostile, actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession for ten years.  We thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Andrew B. Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Jessica Dayton appeals the denial of her application for postconviction relief from her conviction of first-degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: Dayton’s due process claim is barred by Iowa Code § 822.8.  But even if we were to set section 822.8 aside, Dayton was not denied due process when the State presented minor discrepancies in its theory of the case at two other trials.  With respect to her other claims, Dayton fell short of proving her trial counsel was ineffective.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (11 pages)

            Brandon Nelson appeals following his thirteen criminal convictions related to a high-speed chase and firearm altercation with law enforcement.  On appeal, Nelson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting four of his convictions: (1) assault on a peace officer while using or displaying a dangerous weapon; (2) interference with official acts while armed with a firearm; (3) going armed with intent; and (4) attempted murder of a peace officer.  He also contends that the district court abused its discretion during sentencing by failing to consider his expressions of remorse.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports Nelson’s convictions on all challenged counts.  The district court properly considered Nelson’s expressions of remorse and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Tajh Ross appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Ross cannot show a reasonable probability that he would have received a new trial if counsel had timely applied for further review after this court affirmed the denial of his first application for postconviction relief, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (26 pages)

            Dianne Christopher appeals a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendants on her claims alleging defamation and invasion of privacy.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael Carpenter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (3 pages)

            Venhure Yosef Tsegay appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the PCR court thoroughly addressed the issue in its ruling, we affirm by memorandum opinion.  See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d).