2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (12 pages)
    
    Tyler Freemont appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury causing serious injury, and going armed with intent.  He challenges hearsay testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence of the going-armed-with-intent conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: After reviewing the record, we find the State did not present sufficient proof of movement to convict Freemont of going armed with intent.  We reverse that conviction and remand for the district court to vacate that part of his sentence.  But we affirm his attempted-murder and willful-injury convictions because admission of the hearsay statements, if erroneous, was harmless.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (2 pages)

            Samir Muhamedagic appeals the district court’s order on his breach-of-contract action against Lejla Suljevic following the sale of a semi-truck.  Muhamedagic challenges the court’s findings relating to his repossession of the truck upon Suljevic’s breach of the parties’ contract.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we conclude the judgment of the district court is correct, no error of law appears, the questions presented are not of sufficient importance to justify an opinion, and an opinion would not have precedential value.  Accordingly, we affirm without opinion.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (9 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of his postconviction relief application, which raised ineffective-assistance and actual-innocence claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant has failed to show any breach of duty by counsel, that he would not have accepted the favorable plea agreement but for counsel’s actions, and that no reasonable juror would have convicted him of the theft and assault offense, we affirm the denial of his application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tamara Roberts, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (2 pages)

            Justin Lamont Wright appeals his conviction for first‑degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we lack authority to hear this appeal, we must dismiss.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (16 pages)

            Donald Turner appeals, and his employer—NCI Building Systems—cross-appeals, the district court’s denial of their petition and cross-petition for judicial review of the workers’ compensation commissioner’s ruling.  NCI challenges the commissioner’s decisions that Turner’s work injury caused his mental-health condition, Turner’s physical injuries resulted in an industrial disability rather than scheduled injuries, and that the amount of that industrial disability is forty percent.  It also argues the commissioner improperly admitted a medical report that Turner submitted after the hearing.   Turner challenges the commissioner’s finding that the mental-health condition is not permanent or, in the alternative, the lack of any award of healing-period benefits.   OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not error in affirming the commissioner.  The commissioner’s evidentiary ruling was not an abuse of discretion.  All the challenged findings are supported by substantial evidence.  And the commissioner’s decision is not otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable on any issue properly preserved for our review.