May 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Ahlers, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Sisters Shelly Zabel and Jacqueline Oberhelman (Jackie) filed competing petitions to be named guardian and conservator of their mother, Mary Zabel, who has advanced dementia.  Following a four-day trial, the district court selected Shelly to be guardian and Green State Credit Union to be the conservator; it suspended a 2012 durable medical power of attorney giving Jackie certain powers.  Jackie appeals, challenging the court’s guardianship decision and the suspension of the power of attorney.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Shelly guardian rather than Jackie; we affirm that decision.  But the court lacked authority to suspend Mary’s 2012 medical power of attorney naming Jackie as her agent in this circumstance, so we reverse that decision. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            An applicant convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary appeals the denial of his application for DNA profiling under Iowa Code section 81.10 (2022).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant filed his application for DNA profiling as a standalone case and the district court did not take judicial notice of his underlying criminal case or his pending postconviction-relief proceeding, the records in those other cases are not before us.  On the merits, the district court properly denied his application because all requested samples were already profiled and the applicant failed to allege any new method or technology for retesting the samples.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Langholz, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (4 pages) 

            Ceeron Williams appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) from his convictions for assault with the intent to inflict serious injury, intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, and willful injury causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the PCR court that Williams failed to establish that his trial counsel breached an essential duty and failed to show prejudice resulted from any of the claimed breaches.  Because we cannot provide any better reasoning or analysis than that found in the PCR court’s well-reasoned order, we affirm with this memorandum opinion.  See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Christopher C. Foy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Telleen, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Moises Erreguin-Labra appeals his convictions for third-degree sexual abuse and assault causing bodily injury, arguing the district court’s response to a report of unauthorized courtroom photography biased his jury and denied his right to a fair trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Erreguin-Labra raised no objection to the court’s actions at trial, his sole challenge on appeal is not preserved for our review.  We affirm his convictions without reaching the merits of his jury bias claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher, Badding, Buller, and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Special concurrence by Tabor, C.J.  (22 pages)

            Will Young Jr. appeals his convictions and sentences for willful injury causing serious injury and intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent.  He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, urging this court to reach that claim by finding Iowa Code section 814.7 (2023) unconstitutional.  Young also contends that the State failed to prove the “reasonable apprehension” element of his intimidation charge, and that the district court was unaware it had discretion to reduce his minimum sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject Young’s argument that Iowa Code section 814.7 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.  We therefore lack authority to decide his ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal.  We further conclude that Young’s conviction for intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, as marshaled at trial, is supported by sufficient evidence.  We find no evidence of a lapse in the district court’s sentence discretion.  Accordingly, we affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: The majority properly finds Young’s interest in vindicating his Sixth Amendment right can be diverted to postconviction proceedings without violating the Supremacy Clause.  But in my view, he makes a powerful case that “the Iowa legislature’s determination that most ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are better resolved in collateral proceedings cannot countermand the Sixth Amendment’s requirement that states provide indigent defendants with effective representation.”  I write separately to underscore that serious doubt remains whether vindication in postconviction relief proceedings—on a practical level—will come quickly enough to deliver justice.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Alan Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            Jerris Davis Sr. appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, which alleged that (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial and to poll the jury because of a heated argument between two jurors during deliberations; and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing “to raise issues other than ineffective assistance of counsel.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that Davis failed to prove that his trial counsel and previous appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph D. Seidlin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (3 pages)

            Michael Roach was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree robbery in 2004.  The district court summarily dismissed his sixth postconviction-relief application, filed more than thirteen years after the statute of limitations closed.  Roach appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: Roach did not raise a new ground of law that excepted him from the statute of limitations, we cannot overrule precedent from the Iowa Supreme Court, and Roach’s equitable tolling claim is not preserved.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tamra Roberts, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (12 pages)

            After a bench trial led to convictions for one count of second-degree sexual abuse and one count of third-degree sexual abuse, Searcy Wyatt sought postconviction relief (PCR).  Wyatt asserted trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to (1) call additional witnesses on his behalf, (2) use exhibits he provided, and (3) adequately prepare him to testify at trial.  The district court denied Wyatt’s application.  On appeal, Wyatt asks us to reverse the district court’s ruling on the same claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Wyatt failed to establish that counsel breached an essential duty in any of the three claims he raised, so we need not consider the alleged cumulative prejudice he suffered.  We affirm the district court’s denial of his PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Zachary Verdeyen appeals his convictions of second-degree sexual abuse and lascivious acts with a child.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Verdeyen is guilty of both charges, so we affirm his convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (8 pages)

            Brianna Moss pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in the second degree and possession of a controlled substance.  The district court sentenced her to concurrent prison terms of five years and 365 days.  Moss raises two issues in this appeal of her sentence.  First, she contends that the court improperly relied on unproven conduct—her failures to appear for sentencing and to maintain contact with her probation officer.  Second, she alleges that the court abused its discretion by choosing prison over probation.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding that the district court neither considered impermissible factors nor abused its discretion by imposing incarceration, we affirm Moss’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, Amy Zacharias, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (7 pages)

            Scott Rasmussen appeals, and Michelle Rasmussen cross-appeals, the property division in the decree dissolving their marriage.  They each challenge the amount of the cash equalization payment.  Scott argues the payment is too high because Michelle dissipated marital assets, while Michelle argues the payment is too low because of an excluded asset and errors in the court’s calculations.  Scott also challenges the court’s decision to award an empty lot at Lake Panorama to Michelle.    OPINION HOLDS: We decline to apply the dissipation doctrine to Michelle’s spending that occurred during the marriage, but we do subtract funds she used to pay off a marital debt from her liquidated 401(k) funds.  We affirm the district court’s division of assets, with the addition of assigning Scott’s service truck to him in the amount of $30,000.  Following our recalculation of the property award, we raise Scott’s equalization payment by $33,000.  Lastly, we decline Michelle’s request for appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (12 pages)

            Lee Anne McColl appeals the economic provisions of the decree dissolving her marriage to Jeffrey Howe.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the provisions of the decree dividing the parties’ assets to require that Jeffey pay Lee Anne an additional $6500 but affirm in all other respects.  We decline to award Lee Anne appellate attorney fees.