2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Amy M. Moore, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals from a custodial decree granting both parents legal custody and placing their child in the mother’s physical care.  The father challenges the award of joint legal custody and the physical-care determination.  The father also requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that awarding the parents joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests.  However, we conclude that the child’s interests are best served by placing the child in the father’s physical care.  We remand to the district court to determine the mother’s visitation schedule, child-support obligation, obligations for medical support, and tax dependency exemptions.  We do not award the father any appellate attorney fees.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark (motions) and Jeffrey Farrell (trial), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (10 pages)

            Following a jury trial, Darren Diggs appeals his conviction for first-degree murder.  He challenges the admission of evidence under the inevitable discovery rule.  He argues the district court erred in determining the inevitable discovery rule does not violate article I, section 8 of the Iowa constitution.  The State rejects Diggs’s constitutional challenge and counters that even if the inevitable discovery rule is unconstitutional, the admission of the disputed evidence was harmless.  OPINION HOLDS: As the record contains overwhelming evidence of guilt beyond the disputed evidence, any alleged error was harmless.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (5 pages)

            Douglas Dally appeals the judgment entered on his negligence claim against Randy Demro.  OPINION HOLDS: I. The district court did not err in admitting Dally’s mental health records into evidence because they were relevant and the probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  II. Because the jury’s damage award is not inconsistent, we affirm the denial of Dally’s motion for new trial.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion in arrest of judgment and his prison sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly denied Vivas’s untimely motion in arrest of judgment.  Additionally, we find no abuse of the court’s discretion in imposing a prison sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (12 pages)

            A state employee appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for judicial review.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Stanfield’s petition for judicial review.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O'Brien County, Nancy L. Whittenburg, Judge.  SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchellly, J.  (4 pages)

            Sheila Marie Sundall appeals the sentence imposed after pleading guilty to possession of a controlled substance, third or subsequent offense.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the sentencing court considered an unproven offense when sentencing Sundall, we vacate and remand for resentencing before a different judge consistent with this opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Christopher Kemp, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (4 pages)

            Rodney Henricksen appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to (1) call his lip-reading expert to testify at trial, (2) adequately prepare Henricksen and another witness for their testimony, (3) adequately communicate regarding his case and trial strategies, such as a justification defense, and (4) seek a mistrial based on Henricksen’s jail phone calls.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we cannot provide any better reasoning or analysis than that found in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order, we affirm with this memorandum opinion.

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

    Cedric Taylor appeals his sentence for sexual abuse in the third degree, contending that the State breached the plea agreement and that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a term of incarceration by considering an unproven offense.  OPINION HOLDS: On the first contention, because the plea agreement allowed the State to advocate for any sentence provided by law, the prosecutor’s comments did not breach that agreement.  On the second claim, the sentencing court’s colloquial references to the victim as a child did not betray an intent to sentence Taylor for an uncharged offense.  We thus affirm the judgment and sentence.