2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024), challenging the juvenile court’s determination that termination is in the children’s best interest and the refusal to grant a six-month extension to reunify.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the juvenile court properly terminated the mother’s parental rights.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother challenges the juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to her son.  First, she contends the establishment of a guardianship would have been a less-restrictive permanency option.  Second, she argues termination is not in her son’s best interests.  Third, she asks us to apply a permissive exception.  OPINION HOLDS: We decline to find a guardianship to be appropriate.  Because termination is in the best interests of her son and we find no permissive exception applies to preclude termination, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick J. McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child by arguing that termination is not in the child’s best interests and requesting the establishment of a guardianship instead.  OPINION HOLDS: A guardianship would not serve the child’s best interests.  Given the father’s unresolved mental-health and substance-use issues, termination of his rights, which will allow for the child to be adopted into a stable family, is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, whether termination is in the child’s best interests, and whether termination would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding termination is in the child’s best interests and no other claim is properly before us, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joel D. Yates, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (17 pages)

            Devin Gregory appeals his convictions of third-degree sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of a minor, and two counts of supplying alcohol to persons under the legal age.  He raises five claims: the district court should have struck for cause a juror, the district court should have granted a mistrial based on his health issues, the State offered insufficient evidence, the district court only offered brief reasons for denying his motion for new trial, and he challenges his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the district court did not abuse its discretion on the first two claims, the State offered sufficient evidence, the motion for new trial was properly denied as untimely, and the district court considered proper factors in sentencing.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahler, P.J., Langholz, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Richard Lawson appeals his conviction for serious injury by vehicle, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that he operated his vehicle in a reckless manner.  OPINION HOLDS: The State presented substantial evidence that Lawson operated his vehicle in a reckless manner.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J. (25 pages)

            The defendant appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse, raising issues involving a request to strike a juror for cause, use of a supplemental questionnaire for potential jurors, a mid-trial motion to continue, and the evidence supporting his convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding no merit in the defendant’s claims.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Alan Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Ursula Gardner appeals the district court’s judgment against Des Moines Stucco, LLC on her breach-of-contract claim.  She argues that the court should have awarded more damages because the court erred in finding that she failed to mitigate damages, in calculating the amount of damages that could have been mitigated, and in awarding only nominal damages of $1 for the loss of a warranty from Des Moines Stucco.  She also contends the district court should have awarded her common-law attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that Gardner failed to mitigate her damages and its calculation of the damages that could have been mitigated.  So too does it support the court’s finding that Gardner failed to prove the value of her lost warranty.  And nothing in the record comes close to the egregious behavior needed to support Gardner’s extraordinary request for common-law attorney fees.  We thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Myron Gookin, Judge.  REVERSED and REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (11 pages)

            Rodney Stajcar appeals the district court’s ruling granting Michael and Sharon West’s petition for declaratory judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court’s order is inconsistent with recent supreme court precedent.  Therefore, we must reverse and remand. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II and Mark J. Smith, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Langholz, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Partial dissent by Buller, J.  (10 pages)

            Dr. David Hartsuch appeals the dismissal of his petition for judicial review naming the Iowa Board of Medicine and the Iowa Board of Pharmacy as respondents.  He argues the district court failed to recognize its jurisdiction over unaddressed elements of his petition, and he challenges the court’s mootness finding under the voluntary-cessation doctrine.  OPINION HOLDS: We find Dr. Hartsuch’s appellate brief fails to adequately identify a reviewable agency action overlooked by the district court, and we reject his voluntary-cessation argument as inapplicable to the district court’s disposition.  We therefore affirm the dismissal of his petition for judicial review.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because this appeal was not timely taken, I believe we lack jurisdiction and therefore dissent from reaching the merits.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Heather Lauber, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (16 pages)

            Clarence Reed appeals his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder, arguing the district court violated his due process right to competency and unlawfully ordered him to participate in a “victim offender dialogue program.”  OPINION HOLDS: Under the unique facts of this case, we find reinstating the criminal proceedings did not violate Reed’s constitutional rights.  However, we agree the court had no authority to order a victim-offender dialogue.  We therefore affirm Reed’s conviction, vacate his sentence in part, and remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order.