2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Martha L. Mertz, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (5 pages)

            Antonio Lewis appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s determination he was the person who killed his girlfriend, Karisa Shendelman.  OPINION HOLDS: The State presented evidence that officers responding to the 911 call found Lewis alone and covered in blood in the apartment with his dead girlfriend.  Lewis’s statements to officers explaining what happened were inconsistent—with each other and with the evidence that was collected.  Later, when he was in custody, Lewis admitted that he “stabbed a white bitch.”  Substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that Lewis killed Karisa; we affirm his conviction for first-degree murder.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Lucy J. Gamon, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Badding, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (16 pages)

            Mark Groenendyk appeals, and Tammy Groenendyk cross-appeals, from the economic provisions of their divorce decree.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the district court’s value for one of their farms and remove a debt owed to their farming corporation from the property division.  Accordingly, we increase the total cash equalization payment that Mark owes to Tammy.  We do not disturb the rest of the district court’s equitable distribution of property or its decision to deny Tammy’s request for spousal support.  We also deny her request for appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (18 pages)

            Sarah Bailey and the estate of Eric Bailey appeal the district court’s entry of judgment following a jury trial in which they were found liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation and assessed damages.  The Baileys argue the district court (1) abused its discretion in excluding their proposed Exhibit L, (2) abused its discretion in excluding testimony relating to Sarah’s character for truthfulness, (3) abused its discretion in accepting the jury’s award of speculative and excessive damages, and (4) committed a combination of errors that cumulatively denied the Baileys a fair trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no abuses of discretion, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            An applicant for postconviction relief appeals the district court’s order granting the State’s motion for summary disposition and denying his application, arguing that newly discovered evidence overcomes the time bar to his application.  OPINION HOLDS: Since the applicant’s proposed newly discovered evidence is not relevant and would not have changed the result of his trial, we find that his PCR application is barred by the statute of limitations.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (21 pages)

            Property owner Meera Enterprise, LLC appeals from a jury’s verdict awarding a storm restoration contractor, Aesthetic Elements, Inc., liquidated damages on the contractor’s claim for breach of contract.  Meera challenges (1) whether there was an enforceable contract; (2) the enforceability of a liquidated damages provision in that contract; (3) the admission of lost-profits testimony from the owner of Aesthetic Elements; and (4) the court’s refusal to submit a spoliation instruction to the jury.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered all the challenges raised by Meera on appeal, we affirm the jury’s verdict awarding Aesthetic Elements $93,329 in liquidated damages for Meera’s breach of the parties’ enforceable service agreement.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Ronald Cooley challenges his conviction for failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements, second offense.  Cooley argues his conviction should be reversed because he was unable to comply with the statute as written—by registering in person—due to the local government’s decision to close the sheriff’s office during the COVID-19 pandemic.  More specifically, he maintains (1) the local decision to close the sheriff’s office and require offenders to register via alternative means (without the Iowa legislature amending the statute) amounts to a constitutional violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine and is fatal to applying the statute against him; (2) the marshalling jury instruction was in error because it did not include the statutory requirement that he register in person; and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Cooley failed to preserve his separation-of-powers claim, the marshalling instruction was proper in this case, and sufficient evidence supports his conviction, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Dissent by Langholz, J.  (18 pages)

            An employer appeals from a judicial-review proceeding following an adverse decision by the workers’ compensation commissioner.  OPINION HOLDS: Interpreting the statute in question in favor of the employee, we affirm the award of benefits.  Substantial evidence supports commissioner’s industrial disability determination.  DISSENT ASSERTS: Tyler Dungan returned to work and received the same or greater earnings as he did at the time of his unscheduled injury.  The plain and unambiguous text of Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(v) (2019) thus requires Dungan to “be compensated based only upon [his] functional impairment resulting from the injury, and not in relation to [his] earning capacity.”  And so, I would reverse the district court’s and workers’ compensation commissioner’s contrary interpretation of the statute and remand for the commissioner to decide an award based only on Dungan’s functional impairment. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Buller, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Following his 2014 convictions for burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, Joel Zamora filed his second application for postconviction relief, which the district court summarily dismissed as time-barred.  Zamora appeals.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Zamora failed to establish a new ground of fact that allows him to overcome the three-year statute of limitations, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Sandy, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A postconviction-relief (PCR) applicant appeals the district court’s order granting the State’s motion for summary disposition of his PCR application.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding the PCR application is not based on a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the three-year statute of limitation.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            The City of Dubuque appeals the district court’s ruling on judicial review, which affirmed a voluntary annexation.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court did not err in its ruling on judicial review, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly J. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    Carlos Wakely appeals the revocation of his deferred judgment after he pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.  He claims the district court acted out of emotion when considering his probation violation and then entering judgment on his serious misdemeanor conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: The court did not abuse its discretion by substituting a suspended sentence in place of Wakely’s deferred judgment after considering his attitude at the probation violation hearing, the nature and circumstances of the assault, protection of the public, Wakely’s criminal history, his propensity for further criminal acts, his maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, and the plea agreement.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Joshua P. Schier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Matthew Meisheid appeals his convictions and sentences for two counts of assault on a peace officer while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1(2)(c) and 708.3A(2) (2022).  He argues that the evidence was insufficient on two elements of the offense—that he displayed the gun “in a threatening manner” and that he did so “toward” either deputy.”  And he contends the district court abused its discretion in finding no mitigating circumstances to reduce his mandatory minimum sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports both challenged elements of the offense.  And we do not interpret the statutory term “display toward” to require Meisheid to “point toward” the deputies with the gun because the statute separately prohibits pointing a weapon toward another.  We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing.  The record shows that the court was aware of the potential mitigating circumstances and merely concluded they did not warrant sentencing Meisheid to less than the mandatory minimum.