2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, Henry W. Latham II, Stuart P. Werling, and Meghan Corbin, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A jury found Clifford Gooden III guilty of second-degree burglary.  On appeal, Gooden argues his constitutional right to counsel was violated because the district court allowed him to represent himself at critical stages of the prosecution leading up to trial without first obtaining a valid waiver of his right to counsel.  Gooden also argues the district court should have sua sponte instructed the jury to not consider the fact he voluntarily absented himself from trial when deciding whether he was guilty of the charged offense.  OPINION HOLDS: While Gooden was denied the right to representation at critical stages of the proceedings before he validly waived his right five days before trial started, the denial of his constitutional right did not affect the framework of the proceedings in this case; Gooden is not entitled to a new trial.  And we cannot find the district court committed legal error by not sua sponte giving a jury instruction that is not required by Iowa law.  We affirm Gooden’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (18 pages)

            Charley Martin appeals a physical-care and child-support order under Iowa Code chapter 600B (2021).  She challenges the court’s placement of her daughter in the joint physical care of Martin and the daughter’s father, Jacob Callender, arguing that it was based on improper hearsay evidence and does not equitably consider their daughter’s best interest.  And she argues that the court erred in not awarding child support or attorney fees because it failed to consider all Callender’s income and financial resources, including past and future payments from a substantial personal-injury settlement.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review—giving due deference to the district court’s advantage in assessing the parties and witnesses in person and without considering any of the challenged hearsay evidence—we agree with the court’s decision to place their daughter in the parties’ joint physical care.  But Martin is correct that the court failed to properly consider the income Callender will be receiving from his personal-injury settlement and all his available current assets—including those derived from his earlier settlement payments—in ruling on her requests for child support and attorney fees.  And because the record lacks evidence of Callender’s assets and ongoing financial needs, we cannot decide an equitable child-support or attorney-fee award ourselves.  We thus reverse the district court’s denial of Martin’s requests for child support and attorney fees and remand for the court to consider both requests on a fully developed factual record.  Given the inadequate record, we also remand the parties’ requests for appellate attorney fees for the district court to consider their respective financial needs in light of all their available resources.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Bobby Woodberry was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with intent to commit serious bodily injury; he was sentenced to life in prison in 1995.  The district court summarily dismissed Woodberry’s sixth application for postconviction relief, which Woodberry appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: Woodberry did not raise a new ground of law that excepted him from the statute of limitations, and we cannot overrule precedent from the Iowa Supreme Court.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (3 pages)

            After Edward Campbell Jr. filed a frivolous application for postconviction relief, the district court reduced his earned time credit by thirty days as a penalty.  Campbell appeals, arguing that deciding how much to reduce his earned time credit is akin to sentencing and, accordingly, the district court should provide reasons on the record for its specific reduction decision.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court was not required to give reasons for the amount of earned time credit it deducted from Campbell and there is no evidence the district court abused its discretion by imposing a thirty-day reduction, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (11 pages)

            Rebecca Hergert appeals a district court order appointing one of her brothers, Jason Rottinghaus, as guardian to their father, John Rottinghaus, setting a visitation schedule, and continuing the guardianship.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting Jason from a pool of exclusively imperfect options to serve as guardian—Jason’s years of caregiving and his commitment to John’s desire to receive in-home care tips the balance in his favor.  We similarly find that good cause supports the court’s limited visitation schedule for the six siblings given the recommendations from John’s medical providers, the degree of conflict between the siblings, and John’s desire to see each of his children.  Finally, we agree with the district court that John continues to be best served by a guardianship.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Rustin Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (20 pages)

            A jury convicted former police officer Michael Tobin Jr. of eleven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of Iowa Code section 728.12 (2021).  Tobin appeals, arguing that the evidence could not support his nine convictions for promoting or possessing sexually explicit images of minors because he did so in the performance of his official duties.  Short of that, he claims that six of the eight possession violations were not supported by substantial evidence.  The State’s load-bearing evidence was the testimony of C.T., a minor then-Officer Tobin lured into a sexual relationship.  Tobin also raises two evidentiary challenges.  First, he argues that the district court should not have admitted testimony from a twenty-year-old woman about her contemporaneous affair with Tobin under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b).  Second, he contends that the court misapplied rule 5.412 in excluding C.T.’s testimony that she was bisexual.  Finally, Tobin contests his indeterminate fifteen-year sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings.  On the first sufficiency claim, we find Tobin was not conducting official duties when he showed sexually explicit images to C.T.  But the evidence was insufficient to prove he wrongly possessed six of those eight images.  Thus, we vacate his possession convictions on counts four, five, six, seven, ten, and eleven and remand for resentencing on counts one, two, three, eight, and nine.  Given this remedy, we need not address Tobin’s sentencing challenge.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (14 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for domestic abuse assault, challenging evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence, the colloquy for his stipulation to multiple previous domestic-abuse convictions, and the fine and surcharge.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the defendant’s convictions but, accepting the State’s concessions on appeal, remand for additional proceedings on the enhancement and fine issues.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (3 pages)

            More than twenty years after he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, Dixon filed this postconviction-relief application—his sixth—which the district court summarily dismissed.  Dixon appeals, arguing a new ground of law excepts him from the statute of limitations and that summary dismissal was inappropriate because the State failed to prove he did not raise a genuine issue of material fact.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State was entitled to summary dismissal as a matter of law, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Dixon’s sixth postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (3 pages)

            The district court summarily dismissed as time-barred David Willock’s third application for postconviction relief (PCR).  Willock urges us to reconsider our supreme court’s holding that the statute of limitations to PCR actions is constitutional.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Willock’s PCR application.

               Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (3 pages)

               Deven Deschepper appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We concur with the postconviction-relief court’s reasons for denying the claims in Deschepper’s application.  We do not consider two new claims Deschepper raises on appeal, which are not preserved for our review.  We affirm under Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e).

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

            Connor Gibbs appeals a district court ruling that dismissed his application for postconviction relief as time-barred under Iowa Code section 822.3 (2021).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Gibbs’s application, finding no nexus between the asserted ground of fact and the challenged conviction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  Special concurrence by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            Kenneth “Mike” Howard appeals the decree dissolving his twenty-three-year marriage with Anna Howard.  He argues the court erred in its child-support calculation, the spousal-support award is “excessive,” and his premarital assets should have been set aside.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree the district court should have considered the spousal-support award in setting the parties’ respective incomes for purposes of calculating child support, and remand with directions for the court to recalculate accordingly.  We find the rehabilitative spousal support award is fair and equitable.  And Mike failed to preserve error on his claim that the court included premarital assets in property division that should have been excluded.  Finally, we decline Anna’s request for appellate attorney fees.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I reluctantly concur.  But if we were writing on a blank slate, I would find Mike’s failure to attend trial precluded appellate review and summarily affirm.