2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie K. Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (6 pages)

            Abdalla Elehamir Mousa appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, contending his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and call witnesses to testify, failing to properly cross‑examine a key State witness, and requesting a modified jury instruction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Mousa did not establish either of his trial counsel were ineffective, we affirm the denial of his application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J. (6 pages)

            Montrell Anderson appeals the dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief (PCR) from his 2005 convictions for first-degree burglary and second-degree sexual assault.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Anderson failed to show the existence of new ground of fact that is relevant to his convictions and could not be raised during the period set out in section 822.3 (2021), we affirm the order dismissing his third PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart Werling, Judge.  SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING WITH DIRECTIONS.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J. (14 pages)

            John Grafton entered into a universal plea agreement with the State to resolve three separate criminal cases pending against him.  Grafton maintains the plea agreement he entered into was an Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.10(3) plea agreement conditioned on the district court’s concurrence.  At the conclusion of his sentencing hearing, the district court rejected Grafton’s plea agreement and imposed a harsher sentence than the one contemplated by his agreement.  On appeal, Grafton challenges his sentence arguing (1) he should have been given an opportunity to withdraw his plea; (2) the sentence violates double jeopardy; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find Grafton entered into a rule 2.10(3) plea agreement conditioned on the district court’s concurrence and the court rejected his agreement, we conclude the district court should have granted him an opportunity to withdraw his plea.  Accordingly, we vacate his sentences and remand for resentencing.  Because we find Grafton’s rule 2.10(3) claim to be dispositive, we do not address his remaining claims.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher, Badding, Chicchelly, and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (29 pages)

            A defendant appeals a district court ruling that found him liable for hostile housing environment sexual harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation.  He argues there was not substantial evidence to support the district court’s factual findings.  He also challenges the reasonableness of the punitive damages assessed against him.  OPINION HOLDS: The evidence is sufficient to support the district court’s findings. And we find no legal error in the assessment of punitive damages.  Accordingly, we affirm and remand for a determination by the district court of an award of reasonable appellate attorney fees for Van Gundy. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Elizabeth Dupuich, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            C.G. appeals from a protective order prohibiting contact with T.F.’s child.  OPINION HOLDS: Despite the one‑year protective order expiring while this appeal was pending, we find the case is not moot.  We affirm on the merits.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (15 pages)

            Bill McDonough appeals three financial provisions of the decree dissolving his twenty-eight-year marriage with Rachel McDonough.  He challenges: (1) the amount and duration of Rachel’s traditional-spousal-support award; (2) a restriction on the use of the children’s 529 accounts to meet his obligation to pay for their private primary and secondary schooling; and (3) a purported obligation for him to pay expenses for the parties’ adult children.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, giving appropriate deference to the district court, we agree that the amount of spousal support is equitable.  We reject Bill’s argument that the award should automatically end when Rachel reaches a specific age or retires—such a change in circumstances must be addressed in a modification proceeding.  But because Rachel agrees the award must end if she remarries, we modify the decree accordingly.  As for the funds in the 529 accounts, we cannot say that preserving them for college expenses is inequitable.  Bill’s challenge to the purported obligation to pay expenses for the parties’ adult children is not preserved for our review.  We thus affirm the decree as modified, assess appellate costs to Bill, award Rachel appellate attorney fees, and remand for decision on a reasonable amount of fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Carl J. Petersen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            Dennis Thompson appeals a jury’s guilty verdict, arguing the district court erred when the court allowed the State to amend the trial information during trial and insufficient evidence underlies the jury’s verdict, as the child complainant’s testimony was uncorroborated.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the amended jury instructions did not change Thompson’s trial strategy, Thompson set forth an incomplete alibi before trial started, we find the court did not err when it allowed an amendment to trial information mid-trial.  Finally, Iowa courts have found a child’s uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to underly a guilty verdict.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Margaret L. Lingreen, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (15 pages)

            Donald and Linda Lawson appeal from a judgment decree quieting title of two parcels of land in their neighbors after their neighbors brought an action to quiet title and raise several tort claims against the Lawsons.  The Lawsons argue they have an easement running through the parcels.  They also argue that the district court abused its discretion by bifurcating the quiet-title issue and tort claims and addressing the quiet-title issue first.  OPINION HOLDS: The Lawsons do not have a valid express easement, easement by implication, modified prescriptive easement, or easement by acquiescence.  The district court did not abuse its discretion when it bifurcated the quiet-title issue from the tort claims and addressed the quiet-title issue first.  However, because there is a factual dispute as to whether the Lawsons have a valid prescriptive easement, the district court erred by granting summary judgment on that claim.  We reverse the district court’s summary judgment ruling on that issue.  We remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Ahlers, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Kevin Kelley appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense, arguing it is not supported by substantial evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Considering Kelley’s admission at the scene regarding his use of methamphetamine and marijuana, the pipe in his vehicle that appeared to have burnt methamphetamine, his performance on field sobriety tests, the heat bumps on his tongue, and his refusal to give a urine sample to be tested for illegal substances after drinking large quantities of water, substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that Kelley was “under the influence.” 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, William Patrick Wegman and Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A jury convicted Frank Berwanger of criminal mischief, interference with official acts, and eluding.  Berwanger challenges a ruling on his motion to suppress claiming the initial traffic stop was unlawful, argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his criminal mischief conviction, and claims the district court erred by refusing to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court committed no errors in finding there was substantial evidence supporting Berwanger’s conviction for criminal mischief, that the motion to suppress was without merit, and that Berwanger was not entitled to a justification jury instruction.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, Jennifer Benson Bahr, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (3 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his sentence as a habitual offender.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the defendant’s risk‑assessment challenge was not preserved, but the fine should not have been imposed.  We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions to enter a corrected sentencing order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (6 pages)

            Bonita Harland and her children, Amanda Lovig, Travis Harland, and Ethan Harland, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their petition contesting the will of Arlene Kae Severidt, Bonita’s sister.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Bonita and her children were not entitled to notice of the admission of Severidt’s will to probate, their petition is barred by the statute of limitations.  We affirm.