2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Ahlers, Badding, and Buller, JJ., and Carr, S.J.  Schumacher, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  Special concurrence by Buller, J.  (14 pages)

            The State appeals the district court’s ruling on Randy Lavern Lee’s application for postconviction relief.  The district court held that Lee’s trial counsel was ineffective (1) for “failing to seek to introduce evidence concerning the victim’s sexual comments reflecting her state of mind”; (2) for failing to hire an expert in “false allegations of sexual abuse”; (3) for failing to obtain the victim’s medical records, and more specifically her mental health records; and (4) through the cumulative prejudice of his errors.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Lee failed to establish his trial counsel was ineffective or that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s alleged failures, we reverse the order granting PCR and remand to the district court for dismissal of Lee’s application.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I write separately to emphasize that the victim’s statement was not an invitation to sex or relevant to consent.  This case is a reminder that cultural sensitivity by courts extends to language and understanding how words are used in modern syntax.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Shane M. Wiley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (12 pages)

            A jury convicted Craig Rockenbach of voluntary manslaughter for killing his eighty-four-year-old father.  Rockenbach appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on two fronts.  First, he argues that the State failed to prove his actions caused or directly contributed to his father’s death.  Second, he contends that there was no evidence he was responding to a serious provocation.  He asks that we vacate his conviction and remand for dismissal or for entry of judgment on involuntary manslaughter.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding substantial evidence to support causation and no reversible error in the jury’s finding of provocation, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Shayne Mayer, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Schumacher, Chicchelly, Langholz, JJ., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  Dissent by Tabor, C.J.  (14 pages).

            On interlocutory review, defendant‑appellants appeal the denial of their pre‑answer motion to dismiss.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicable statute of limitations has passed, we reverse the court’s finding and remand with instructions to dismiss the claims as time‑barred.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I agree with my colleagues that the two-year limitations period in Iowa Code section 670.5 applies to all three counts in the petition brought by Scheevel’s victims.  But the injury here was not Scheevel’s improper use of the criminal history database; it was the impact that improper use had on the people whose data he accessed or disseminated.  Scheevel’s victims should not be barred from pursuing claims when their injuries arose within two years of filing their petition.  For these reasons, I would affirm and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (3 pages)

            Cody Minenga appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to second-degree harassment.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court did not particularly state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, we vacate Minenga’s sentences and remand for resentencing. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J. (5 pages)

            Falon Kapayou appeals her convictions after a conditional guilty plea, challenging the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss for an alleged speedy-indictment violation.  OPININON HOLDS: Because Kapayou’s arguments on appeal are different than those she argued before—and were decided by—the district court, she has failed to preserve error for our review.  And even setting that problem aside, her failure to cite authority in support of her position that being arrested by or appearing before one sovereign constitutes an arrest by or initial appearance before the separate sovereign of the State of Iowa waives any claim of error.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A records-seeker appeals the dismissal of his complaint under Iowa Code chapter 22 (2023).  OPINION HOLDS: Finding Iowa Code section 670.4A does not apply and this case falls into an exception to res judicata, we reverse and remand.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tom Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (4 pages)

            Helen Arndt appeals her conviction for driving while revoked, claiming the district court wrongly denied her motion to suppress under the United States and Iowa Constitutions.  OPINION HOLDS: Because her window tint provided reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, the district court correctly denied Arndt’s motion to suppress.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Valerie L. Clay, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (3 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm as a felon.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (7 pages)

            Tyler Marshall contends the district court abused its discretion in considering allegedly improper factors in declining to grant him a deferred judgment.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tom Reidel, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (7 pages)

            Jessie Hill appeals from his sentence, arguing the district court abused its discretion in failing to follow the requirements of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 2.10 when imposing his sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court expressly followed the terms permitted by the agreement, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Richter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J. and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            Alexis May Haupert appeals the sentence imposed after pleading guilty to assault with intent to inflict serious injury, contending the sentencing court failed to comply with rule 2.10 and abused its sentencing discretion.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the court did not err or abuse its discretion, we affirm Haupert’s sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, John J. Sullivan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (14 pages)

                Jeffrey and Shirlee Haw appeal the denial of their petition to enjoin the City of Cresco’s alleged violations of an access easement.  OPINION HOLDS: Although the language of the easement is facially ambiguous, we agree with the district court’s interpretation based on the circumstances surrounding the easement’s creation and the purpose for which it was granted.  We find that the Haws are not entitled to cross the City’s lots at all points along the parties’ shared boundary and that, consequently, the City’s fence does not unreasonably interfere with the Haws’ access right.  We affirm the denial of injunctive relief.