2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert and Joel W. Barrows, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (8 pages)

            Carl Porter appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine; failure to affix a drug tax stamp; and possession of marijuana, second offense.  He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional; claims the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he intended to deliver the methamphetamine; and claims the court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial, which claimed the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified the stop of Porter’s vehicle.  The finding of intent to deliver was supported by substantial evidence, and the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Porter’s motion for new trial because the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Michael Jacobsen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Chad Kloppe appeals from the spousal support provisions of the district court’s decree dissolving his thirty-year marriage with Rachelle Kloppe.  He alternatively argues that if the spousal support award is affirmed, he should receive one-half of the home equity.  Rachelle requests appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Here, the district court’s award of $4000 per month in spousal support until Chad reaches age sixty-five is equitable given the parties’ standard of living, Rachelle’s needs before she retires, and Chad’s ability to pay.  And we affirm the property division as proposed by Chad and as set out in the decree.  Lastly, we find that Chad shall pay the sum of $10,000 towards Rachelle's requested appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Jennifer Benson Bahr, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (3 pages)

            Kegan Morris appeals his conviction for assault on persons in certain occupations causing bodily injury.  He argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he caused bodily injury to the correctional officer.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the correctional officer’s testimony that he felt pain after being punched by Morris sufficient to establish bodily injury.  As such, we affirm his conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  Opinion by Langholz, J. (4 pages)

            Bryan Mitchell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief as time-barred under Iowa Code section 822.3 (2024).  He argues that we should adopt “due process equitable tolling” and remand for the district court to decide whether he could avoid dismissal under that standard.  OPINION HOLDS: Assuming that Mitchell’s argument is preserved for our review, it is foreclosed by the text of section 822.3 and governing supreme court precedent.  We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mitchell’s second application for postconviction relief.

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

            S.M. appeals the denial of her guardianship petition over her fiancé’s son.  She challenges the district court’s finding that she failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds in Iowa Code section 232D.204(2) (2024).  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing her claims de novo, we find she did not establish grounds to create a guardianship, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (9 pages)

            Bryan Loya appeals the order modifying legal custody and physical care of his child. He argues the district court erred by (1) granting Carly sole legal custody, (2) denying his request for joint physical care, (3) denying his request for equal visitation time, (4) granting in part Carly’s motion to reconsider, and (5) awarding Carly trial attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm and award Carly $5735 in appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order confirming adjudication of his three children as needing assistance and continuing their removal from his custody.  He contends the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services denied him due process by requiring him to participate in drug testing and by not communicating effectively with him.  He also argues that it was unreasonable to continue the removal based on his refusal to take drug tests.  OPINION HOLDS: Given the State’s proof that the children have been exposed to methamphetamine in the home and the mother’s report that she and the father used methamphetamine together, we affirm the juvenile court’s order. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Brent Pattison, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (5 pages)

            The mother appeals the juvenile court’s order adjudicating her child as a child in need of assistance, arguing it is misplaced as the involvement with the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services only related to an abuse incident involving the mother assaulting an older sibling.  OPINION HOLDS: The evidence supported the finding that the child suffered harmful effects from watching the assault on his older sibling and the continuing conflict that flared up between the child and the mother.  We affirm. 

            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.