May 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Dissent by Langholz, J.  (22 pages)

            An applicant appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his first application for postconviction relief, arguing that his postconviction-relief counsel was ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: Limiting our review to the claim actually briefed, and finding Uranga did not prove counsel was ineffective, we affirm. DISSENT ASSERTS:  If Iowa’s statutory right to counsel in postconviction-relief proceedings still guarantees that court-appointed counsel will assist—rather than abandon—their clients, that right was violated here. The majority’s contrary conclusion runs afoul of governing precedent and the underlying principles of fundamental fairness.  Because abandoning Uranga without a voice in the court’s summary disposition of his claims could never be an ethical strategy, we do not need any more evidence to find that Uranga’s counsel breached an essential duty.  Since this conduct left Uranga constructively without counsel at a crucial stage of the postconviction-relief proceeding and thus rendered the entire proceeding presumptively unreliable, Uranga is entitled to reversal without proving any further prejudice.  And Uranga presents this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his briefing to us—so we should not avoid following the governing law based on a hyper-technical reading of his arguments.  I would thus reverse and remand for further proceedings with the effective assistance of counsel to which Uranga is entitled.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (16 pages)

            Ryan Waller appeals the district court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Sasha Kill.  Ryan challenges the district court’s determinations regarding physical care of their children, income for child and spousal support purposes, and the amount and duration of spousal support.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly determined that placing the children in Sasha’s physical care is in the best interests of the children.  The decree equitably determined Ryan’s income, as well as the amount and duration of spousal support awarded to Sasha.  We decline to address Ryan’s arguments that were not properly preserved for appeal and deny Sasha’s request for appellate attorney fees.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (7 pages)

    William Riley appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, claiming the court “erred by not recusing itself from this case”; his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately advise him “as to the benefits of a jury trial over a bench trial”; and he is actually innocent.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm. 
 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie L. Talkington, Judge.  SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A CORRECTED SENTENCING ORDER.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

    Bradley Osborn appeals his sentence for two counts of aggravated misdemeanor assault, alleging that the district court considered only the nature of the offenses when denying his request for deferred judgment and impermissibly relied only on the existence of two victims in imposing consecutive terms. Osborn also argues that the court’s designation of the county jail as the place of confinement was illegal.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm Osborn’s consecutive sentences.  We remand solely for the district court to commit Osborn to the custody of the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (2 pages)

            John Anderson, a former university student, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his previously adjudicated discrimination claims.  OPINION HOLDS: We summarily affirm the district court’s order dismissing Anderson’s petition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (4 pages)

            Juan Ledesma appeals the district court’s order dismissing his fifth application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Ledesma failed to preserve his challenge to the constitutionality of Iowa Code section 822.3 (2023), we affirm the dismissal of his application as untimely.  We also agree with the district court that Ledesma failed to assert any substantive claim for postconviction relief. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Buller, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (8 pages)

    Christopher Prichard appeals his conviction of first-degree murder of his estranged wife, challenging the district court’s decision to allow evidence of her fear of him and the temporary no-contact order between them.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (3 pages)

            A postconviction relief applicant appeals the dismissal of his application.  OPINION HOLDS: Because this sixth application was filed years after the statute of limitations had run and none of the claims fall within an exception to the statute of limitations, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tom Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (21 pages)

            Tevontaye Elliott appeals his convictions and sentences following a jury trial on third-degree sexual abuse, indecent exposure, and sexual exploitation of a minor.  Elliott challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on his sexual-abuse and indecent-exposure convictions, and he disputes the district court’s admission of a Cellebrite extraction report into evidence.  He also alleges the district court erred in sentencing him to prison and ordering the sentences to run consecutive to a separate sentence he received for contempt.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Elliott’s admissions to committing sex acts with M.R. were corroborated by other evidence and the indecent-exposure victim’s testimony could lead a reasonable jury to conclude she was offended, sufficient evidence existed to support the jury’s guilty verdicts.  Because the district court reasonably interpreted its own prior discovery order, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Cellebrite extraction report into evidence.  And because the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing, we uphold the sentences imposed by the district court.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  Dissent by Sandy, J.  (25 pages)

            Denise Farley appeals the denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing the district court abused its discretion in barring her expert’s testimony.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the expert’s specialized knowledge, if admitted, would not help the jury understand the evidence or decide a fact in issue, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Farley’s expert testimony.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because liability was determined without the benefit of the expert’s’s timely disclosed and relevant testimony on the Schultzes’ negligence and liability, and because such was critical to Farley’s case and thus prejudiced her, I respectfully dissent.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Christopher Kemp, Judge.  REVERSED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (19 pages)

    Donald Tuttle sustained two work-related injuries during his employment at Archer Daniels Midland (ADM): a left knee injury and a head injury.  The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner granted Tuttle’s requests for alternate medical care for both claims.  On judicial review, the district court affirmed the deputy’s grant of alternate medical care for Tuttle’s head injury but remanded the claim involving care for his knee to the deputy for a more specific finding.  ADM appeals that judicial review order, advancing three arguments concerning care for Tuttle’s head injury: (1) the court erred in finding ADM unreasonably delayed treatment; (2) the court exceeded its jurisdiction and authority by making new factual findings not considered or relied upon by the deputy; and (3) even if the alleged treatment delay is actionable, the court erred in finding it was unreasonable under Iowa Code section 85.27(4) (2023).  As for the knee injury, ADM argues the court erred in ordering a remand because there was insufficient evidence to conclude its authorized treatment was unreasonable.  Tuttle cross-appeals, contending the remand was unnecessary because the agency applied the correct standard in making its factual findings.  OPINION HOLDS: We reverse the district court’s order affirming the head-injury portion of the deputy’s alternate care decision.  We also reverse the court’s remand and affirm the deputy’s decision granting alternate care for Tuttle’s knee injury.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Langholz, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (7 pages)

            Former Iowa Board of Parole member Kathleen Kooiker appeals the dismissal of her claims of wrongful discharge and intentional interference with prospective business advantage under Iowa Code chapter 70A (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: As Kooiker’s status as an officer rather than an employee preempts her from asserting claims under section 70A.28, we affirm.