2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (9 pages)

            The mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her four children.  The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm on both appeals.

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

            A mother challenges the termination of her parental rights to her daughter based on the juvenile court’s best interest determination.  OPINION HOLDS: Due to the mother’s unresolved substance use and minimal participation in services, we find that termination is in the child’s best interest and affirm the juvenile court’s ruling. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing that (1) the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination, (2) a permissive exception should apply due to the closeness of her relationship with the child, and (3) the juvenile court erred in denying her request for additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Although the mother consistently participated in supervised visitation during the three months leading to the termination hearing, she failed to make meaningful progress in addressing her longstanding issues with methamphetamine use.  In addition to her unresolved substance-use problem, the mother also failed to adequately address issues related to her mental health, lack of stable housing, lack of employment, and domestic violence in her home.  As such the child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody, establishing a statutory ground for termination.  We decline to apply a permissive exception to preclude termination and do not grant the mother any additional time to work towards reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Linnea M.N. Nicol, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (3 pages)

            A mother appeals a juvenile court bridge order.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother failed to make any substantive arguments on appeal, so we consider them waived and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Bethany Currie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (10 pages)

            Joshua Uranga appeals his conviction for violation of sex offender registry requirements, a class “D” felony, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 692A.103, .105, and .111 (2021).  Uranga argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the State had to prove that Uranga stayed away from his principal residence for more than five days.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Uranga as charged, no error in the district court’s entry of judgment on the jury verdict finding Uranga guilty of a violation under Iowa Code section 692A.105, and no error in the district court’s instructions to the jury.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (12 pages)

            Dontaye Burton appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and therefore affirm Burton’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (8 pages)

            Henry Dinkins appeals his convictions of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping.  OPINION HOLDS: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence supports the court’s findings that Dinkins removed the ten-year-old victim from his apartment, transported her to a pond, and killed her.  Thus, we affirm his convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence McLellan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (17 pages)

            Dustin Sample appeals his first-degree-murder conviction for killing his wife.  He challenges four evidentiary rulings and argues that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting text messages between Sample and the victim about his prior abuse of her or the testimony of her coworkers about the prior abuse as prior bad acts under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b).  The court also correctly ruled that the residual hearsay exception under rule 5.807 applied to the statements that the victim made to her coworkers about Sample’s prior abuse.  And it correctly excluded the text messages between Sample and the victim about their drinking history that Sample offered under the residual hearsay exception because admission was not necessary.  We cannot reach the merits of Sample’s last evidentiary challenge—to an officer’s testimony about his demeanor—because it is not preserved or adequately briefed on appeal.  Finally, the court did not abuse its wide discretion in denying Sample’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.  We thus affirm Sample’s conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Charles C. Sinnard, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (10 pages)

            Donna Cox was charged with possession of controlled substance (methamphetamine) after officers discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on her person and in her car.  Cox moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that officers impermissibly prolonged the traffic stop by implementing a “systematic approach” where the canine officer called in a second officer to write a citation while the canine officer simultaneously conducted an open air sniff.  She maintained this approach violated her state and federal constitutional rights.  OPINION HOLDS: After review of the record, we find the officers did not impermissibly extend the traffic stop.  Thus, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, John J. Sullivan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J. (9 pages)

            Austin Neuhaus appeals his sentences and challenges the constitutionality of the firearm prohibition under Iowa Code section 724.26(2) (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Neuhaus’s sentences, finding that the district court did not rely on an improper sentencing factor.  And we deny his constitutional challenges to the firearms prohibition, which was a term of the court’s judgment and sentence order.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (15 pages)

            Joy Trueblood appeals the district court’s summary-judgment ruling dismissing her suit against the Finley Law Firm as barred by claim preclusion and judicial estoppel.  OPINION HOLDS: Trueblood’s claims in her third suit arising from a prior medical-malpractice case all come from the same nucleus of operative facts as her first two, and her alleged wrongs have all been raised before.  So claim preclusion bars her third bite at the apple.  Her claims also turn on her assertion that she was not negligent, but judicial estoppel bars her from contradicting her prior testimony and stipulation that she was liable for negligence.  We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Finley.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Erik I. Howe, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals from a juvenile court order establishing a guardianship over her children, claiming the statutory requirements for the appointment of a guardian have not been met.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is clear and convincing evidence the mother demonstrated a lack of consistent parental participation in the children’s lives, we affirm.