2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF NUNC PRO TUNC.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (13 pages)

            Corey Jackson appeals his sentence, arguing that the State breached the plea agreement by referencing criminal conduct that was not part of the plea agreement.  He argues the district court improperly considered such conduct during sentencing.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the conduct raised by the State was the factual basis for the plea agreement and the consideration of these events was not improper, we affirm the decisions of the district court.  Additionally, the sentencing order incorrectly listed Jackson’s pled-to offense.  We remand to the district court for entry of a nunc pro tunc order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Elizabeth Dupuich, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J. (4 pages)

            Ewaun Gardner Jr. appeals his sentences for conspiracy to commit a non-forcible felony and fourth-degree theft, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a deferred judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that a deferred judgment was inappropriate—despite Gardner’s youth—because of the seriousness of these two offenses involving a stolen gun and the fact that they were committed while Gardner was on pretrial supervision for another offense. 

           Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge. APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother requests a delayed appeal and a reversal of the order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we determine that the mother’s request for a delayed appeal does not meet the three-factor test set out by our supreme court in In re A.B., 957 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 2021), we dismiss her appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal a juvenile court order terminating their parental rights.  The mother challenges all three steps in our termination analysis, while the father only contests the statutory grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: We summarily affirm the mother’s appeal because she only advanced arguments on the father’s behalf.  On the father’s appeal, we find sufficient evidence supported a statutory ground for termination.  Thus, we affirm the termination of both parents’ rights to their child. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

                A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, contending the State failed to prove the statutory grounds for termination, the department failed to make reasonable efforts toward reunification, and a permissive exception should be granted due to either relative custody or the parent‑child bond.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the statutory grounds have been met, her reasonable‑efforts challenge is waived, and we decline to apply a permissive exception, we affirm termination of the mother’s parental rights to her child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the juvenile court’s rejection of her reasonable-efforts challenge and its entry of a bridge modification order placing her children in the sole legal custody and physical care of the children’s father.  OPINION HOLDS: The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services made reasonable efforts toward reunification between the mother and her children.  It is in the children’s best interests to modify the parents’ custodial terms to place the children in the father’s sole legal custody and physical care.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, John D. Lloyd, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, challenging the statutory grounds relied on by the district court.  The mother also asserts termination is not in the child’s best interest, requests an extension of time for reunification efforts, and requests that a guardianship be established in lieu of termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  Partial Dissent by Buller, J.  (14 pages)

            The mother and father of K.B., born in 2021, separately appeal the termination of their parental rights.  Both parents challenge the statutory grounds and argue termination of their respective parental rights is not in K.B.’s best interests because of the closeness of each parent’s relationship with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the mother’s appeal, we conclude she may challenge the first two steps of the termination analysis—whether a statutory ground was proved and if termination of her rights is in the child’s best interests—even though she did not attend the termination hearing and her attorney (who was present) did not present evidence, cross-examine the witness, or convey even a general resistance.  After considering the merits of the mother’s arguments, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.  As to the father’s appeal, because the State proved a statutory ground for termination, termination of the father’s rights is in the child’s best interests, and the father did not establish that a permissive exception is warranted, we affirm the termination of his parental rights.  PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: Because my view is that we should enforce our error-preservation rules rather than allow exceptions to swallow them, I dissent in part.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2011.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother has not shown that any of the circumstances in section 232.116(3) exist, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. 

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (7 pages)

    A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her one-year-old son.  She contends the State did not offer clear and convincing evidence that he could not be safely returned to her custody.  She also maintains that preserving her parental rights serves the child’s best interests and the juvenile court should have denied the State’s petition given the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record, we reach the same conclusions as the juvenile court: the child cannot be returned to the mother’s custody, termination is in the child’s best interests, and the risks the child would face if returned would outweigh the trauma caused by the termination.  Thus, we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Lars G. Anderson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (13 pages)

            Alexander Jackson appeals his three convictions for first-degree murder.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s refusal to give the exact jury instruction he requested, and evidentiary rulings.  OPINION HOLDS: Jackson’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence.  The district court did not abuse its discretion by not using the exact phrasing Jackson requested for a jury instruction.  The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting video exhibits of law enforcement interviews with Jackson and rejecting Jackson’s claims that the videos’ unfair prejudice significantly outweighed their probative value.  The district court erred by admitting hearsay through law enforcement testimony about what people specifically told them because the testimony was not offered to show responsive conduct.  However, the State has overcome the resulting presumption of prejudice because the evidence was duplicative of other, properly admitted evidence; the court provided a limiting instruction to the jury; and the evidence of Jackson’s guilt was overwhelming.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg and Jeanie Vaudt, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered En Banc.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Special Concurrence by Badding, J.  (21 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals three convictions for second-degree sexual abuse.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and argues the district court erred in allowing the victim to testify by closed circuit pursuant to our state statute codifying the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supports the convictions.  And we conclude the evidentiary record satisfied the statute permitting closed-circuit testimony in compliance with federal constitutional law.  We find no state constitutional claim was preserved or properly raised on appeal.  We affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: While the record provides just enough support for a finding of necessity, this case should not be used as a blueprint for the evidence needed to satisfy the requirements of Iowa Code section 915.38(1)(a) (Supp. 2022) and Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).  More should be presented in the future to ensure that the exception does not swallow the constitutional rule favoring face-to-face confrontation.