2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Sandy, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (8 pages)

            John Eddie Hanes III appeals his convictions and sentences after a jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and intimidation with a dangerous weapon.  OPINION HOLDS: Hanes contends that he was denied his right to counsel and the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial.  We cannot consider these claims on direct appeal, either because Hanes failed to preserve error or we are prohibited by statute.  Hanes also challenges the requirement that he serve a minimum term of incarceration before he is eligible for parole, but he fails to show the sentencing court abused its discretion.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Darnell Demery appeals the dismissal of his fourth application for postconviction relief, arguing that the ineffective assistance of counsel in his prior postconviction proceedings excuses his failure to timely assert his new grounds for relief.  OPINOIN HOLDS: By statute, allegations of ineffective assistance in a prior case under chapter 822 cannot toll or extend the three-year limitation for seeking postconviction relief.  Because Demery asserts no new ground of fact or law exempting his claims from the statutory deadline, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing his untimely application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (14 pages)

            Bridge Gap Engineering appeals the district court’s remand decision, which held that the liquidated-damages provision in its contract with Christian Pfeiffer applied, thereby reducing Bridge Gap’s damage award to $114,750.  On appeal, Bridge Gap challenges the damage award on three grounds: (1) the terms and conditions of the purchase order superseded or negated the liquidated-damages provision; (2) the liquidated-damages clause does not apply in cases of willful misconduct, gross negligence, or fraud, which Bridge Gap alleges occurred; and (3) the district court erred in calculating the damages.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no legal error in the district court’s conclusion that the liquidated-damages provision was part of the parties’ contract. We further hold that the damages previously awarded were limited to the breach of contract claim, and that the contract price fell outside the scope of Bridge Gap’s purchase order with Christian Pfeiffer.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Frederick Houwen appeals the denial of his petition for relief from domestic abuse under Iowa Code chapter 236 (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: Because we determine this action is moot, we do not reach the claims Houwen raises on appeal, and we dismiss his appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer, Ahlers, Badding, and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Dissent by Sandy, J.  (37 pages)

            The City of Des Moines appeals the denial of its motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict after trial on Matthew Hunter’s claims for disability discrimination and failure-to-accommodate.  OPINION HOLDS: While we find substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict on Hunter’s discrimination claim, we agree that Hunter failed to establish his accommodation claim.  An excuse for prior misconduct is not a reasonable accommodation.  Furthermore, because the district court incorrectly instructed the jury that employers are liable for discriminatory motives they “do not acknowledge or realize,” we must remand for new trial on Hunter’s discrimination claim.  We vacate the district court’s attorney fee award.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Because Hunter requested an accommodation and the City proceeded to terminate him rather than explore further options and because Instruction 26 does not misstate Iowa law, I respectfully dissent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (13 pages)

            After the City of Iowa City declined to let him withdraw his resignation, former police officer Emilio Puente sued, alleging a “retaliatory constructive discharge” and seeking declaratory relief.  In this appeal, Puente contends the district court erred in finding that a hearing before the Iowa City Civil Service Commission was the exclusive remedy for his claims of wrongful discharge and duress.  He also challenges the district court’s entry of a directed verdict on his alternative incapacity theory.  OPINION HOLDS: Reviewing for legal error, we agree that Puente’s claims of wrongful discharge and duress are foreclosed by the exclusive remedies available under Iowa Code chapter 400.  We also agree that Puente failed to present a submissible incapacity claim.  We therefore affirm the rulings of the district court.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, Margaret Reyes, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

            John Donahue appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his conviction for third-degree sexual abuse.  He contends his trial attorneys rendered deficient performance and he is actually innocent.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the criminal and PCR records, we find Donahue proved neither his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims nor his actual-innocence claim.  We thus affirm the denial of his application.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel A. Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Concurrence in part and dissent in part by Schumacher, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for assault causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the conviction and the district court did not rely on an impermissible factor during sentencing, we affirm. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I join in the majority opinion as to Davis’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge.  And I also agree with the majority that Davis did not preserve his challenge to an in-court identification.  But I respectfully dissent as to the majority’s opinion that the district court did not rely on an improper sentencing factor and would remand for resentencing in light of controlling supreme court precedent set forth in State v. Lovell, 857 N.W.2d 241, 243 (Iowa 2014).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (9 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals her convictions for child endangerment without bodily injury.  OPINION HOLDS: Because substantial evidence supports the convictions, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Telleen, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Dr. Moulay Tidriri appeals the district court’s order granting the pre-answer motion to dismiss of the Board of Regents, Iowa State University, and the other defendants in this case (collectively, “ISU”).  He argues the district court erred in dismissing his claims based on failure to state a claim, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, sovereign immunity, and res judicata.  OPINION HOLDS: Concurring with the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we affirm the grant of ISU’s pre-answer motion to dismiss. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Eric J. Nelson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (9 pages)

            Taylor Rutledge appeals his conviction of first-degree sexual abuse.  He contends that the out-of-court statements of the child victim, O.A., recounted by the nurse practitioner who examined him at a child advocacy center, violated his federal right to confront the accuser.  He also contends the child’s statements, made to both the nurse practitioner and the child’s mother, violated his right under the Iowa Constitution to confront his accuser in face-to-face testimony, as our supreme court recently found in State v. White, 9 N.W.3d 1 (Iowa 2024).  OPINION HOLDS: We need not address either substantive claim because any error was harmless.  Rutledge confessed that he sexually abused O.A. while babysitting, and there is ample physical evidence of the severe injuries he inflicted, which required the child to undergo general anesthesia and surgery.  Thus, we affirm the conviction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (16 pages)

            Michael Zanoni appeals his convictions for possession with intent to deliver over five grams of methamphetamine (enhanced as a second offense); failure to affix drug tax stamp (enhanced as a habitual offender); and possession of marijuana (enhanced as a third offense and habitual offender).  He argues: (1) his right to be brought to trial within one year of arraignment was violated; (2) the district court erred by not enforcing a purported plea agreement; (3) the district court erred by denying his request to continue his trial; (4) the district court erred in denying his motion seeking to suppress evidence because the “original” search warrant application and warrant was not retained; (5) the district court erred by denying his motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct for failing to call a witness; and (6) the district court erred by denying his motion for new trial based on the claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: (1) Zanoni’s right to speedy trial was not violated because he waived his speedy trial rights on the record and in writing but only attempts to challenge his written waiver.  (2) Even if Zanoni and the State reached a plea agreement, Zanoni never entered a guilty plea that was accepted by the court and he made no showing that he detrimentally relied on the agreements, so the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to enforce the purported plea agreement.  (3) The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Zanoni’s motion to continue trial because the trial date had already been continued thirteen times and Zanoni had redemanded his right to speedy trial.  (4) The district court did not err when it denied Zanoni’s motion to suppress evidence from his cell phone because Iowa Rule of Electronic Procedure 16.411(1) does not require a paper version of the warrant applications or warrant to be retained.  (5) The prosecutor did not commit prosecutorial misconduct by not calling a witness listed in the minutes of testimony.  (6) The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Zanoni’s motion for new trial because the weight of the evidence supported Zanoni's convictions.