July 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals a juvenile court bridge order.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother failed to make any substantive arguments on appeal, so we consider them waived and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (10 pages)

            Joshua Uranga appeals his conviction for violation of sex offender registry requirements, a class “D” felony, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 692A.103, .105, and .111 (2021).  Uranga argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State had to prove that Uranga stayed away from his principal residence for more than five days.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Uranga as charged, no error in the district court’s entry of judgment on the jury verdict finding Uranga guilty of a violation under Iowa Code section 692A.105, and no error in the district court’s instructions to the jury.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (12 pages)

            Dontaye Burton appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and therefore affirm Burton’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (8 pages)

            Henry Dinkins appeals his convictions of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping.  OPINION HOLDS: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence supports the court’s findings that Dinkins removed the ten-year-old victim from his apartment, transported her to a pond, and killed her.  Thus, we affirm his convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (17 pages)

            Dustin Sample appeals his first-degree-murder conviction for killing his wife.  He challenges four evidentiary rulings and argues that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting text messages between Sample and the victim about his prior abuse of her or the testimony of her coworkers about the prior abuse as prior bad acts under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b).  The court also correctly ruled that the residual hearsay exception under rule 5.807 applied to the statements that the victim made to her coworkers about Sample’s prior abuse.  And it correctly excluded the text messages between Sample and the victim about their drinking history that Sample offered under the residual hearsay exception because admission was not necessary.  We cannot reach the merits of Sample’s last evidentiary challenge—to an officer’s testimony about his demeanor—because it is not preserved or adequately briefed on appeal.  Finally, the court did not abuse its wide discretion in denying Sample’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.  We thus affirm Sample’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Charles C. Sinnard, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Donna Cox was charged with possession of controlled substance (methamphetamine) after officers discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on her person and in her car.  Cox moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that officers impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop by implementing a “systematic approach” where the canine officer called in a second officer to write a citation while the canine officer simultaneously conducted an open air sniff.  She maintained this approach violated her state and federal constitutional rights.  OPINION HOLDS: After review of the record, we find the officers did not impermissibly extend the traffic stop.  Thus, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, John J. Sullivan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J. (9 pages)

            Austin Neuhaus appeals his sentences and challenges the constitutionality of the firearm prohibition under Iowa Code section 724.26(2) (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Neuhaus’s sentences, finding that the district court did not rely on an improper sentencing factor.  And we deny his constitutional challenges to the firearms prohibition, which was a term of the court’s judgment and sentence order.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (15 pages)

            Joy Trueblood appeals the district court’s summary-judgment ruling dismissing her suit against the Finley Law Firm as barred by claim preclusion and judicial estoppel.  OPINION HOLDS: Trueblood’s claims in her third suit arising from a prior medical-malpractice case all come from the same nucleus of operative facts as her first two, and her alleged wrongs have all been raised before.  So claim preclusion bars her third bite at the apple.  Her claims also turn on her assertion that she was not negligent, but judicial estoppel bars her from contradicting her prior testimony and stipulation that she was liable for negligence.  We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Finley.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals from a juvenile court order establishing a guardianship over her children, claiming the statutory requirements for the appointment of a guardian have not been met.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is clear and convincing evidence the mother demonstrated a lack of consistent parental participation in the children’s lives, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, John Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (24 pages)

            Jennifer Alexander, on behalf of herself and her daughter, C.A., appeals from a district court ruling that granted summary judgment for the defendant insurance companies, Amerigroup Iowa, Inc. and its parent company, Anthem, Inc.  She alleged that in an effort to reduce the cost of C.A.’s care, the insurance companies “caused five wrongful child abuse reports” to be filed against her and “attempted to destroy the familial and legal bond between” her and C.A. by suggesting that she should have her daughter adjudicated as a child in need of assistance.  Alexander brought claims for the insurance companies’ alleged bad faith in administering her daughter’s Medicaid plan under a managed-care contract with what was then known as the Iowa Department of Human Services; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; intentional interference with the parent-child relationship; and declaratory relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court correctly granted Amerigroup’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Alexander’s petition.  Because neither Alexander nor her daughter, C.A., were third-party beneficiaries of Amerigroup’s managed-care contract with the department, Alexander cannot maintain her claim for Amerigroup’s alleged bad faith in administering C.A.’s Medicaid plan.  We agree with the court’s dismissal of Alexander’s emotional-distress claims because the undisputed facts established that Amerigroup is entitled to qualified immunity under Iowa Code section 232.73(1) (2019) for its involvement in child abuse reports against Alexander.  The undisputed facts also established that Amerigroup did not take any action or affirmative effort to abduct C.A. or to compel or induce her to leave Alexander’s custody.  So Alexander’s claim for intentional interference with the parent-child relationship fails as well.  Finally, Alexander did not preserve error on her claims that Amerigroup’s parent company, Anthem, was personally liable for its own tortious actions or that the district court erred in dismissed her prospective claim for declaratory relief. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (6 pages)

            Rodney Dee Brown appeals his conviction after a jury found him guilty of attempting to entice a minor, challenging the district court’s jury‑instruction ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court did not err and substantial evidence supports the conviction, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Buller, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of new DNA profiling under Iowa Code chapter 81 (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant’s sole issue on appeal is a due-process argument never raised to or decided by the district court, the applicant has not preserved any argument for appellate review.  Thus, the district court is affirmed.