2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two of her children.  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the children’s best interests, argues a permissive exception to termination applies, and requests additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Patrick J. McAvan, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the district court’s entry of a bridge modification order and its order finding reasonable efforts for reunification were made.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J.  (7 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e) and (f) (2025).  He argues (1) termination of his parental rights are not in the best interests of the child and (2) termination would be detrimental to the child due to the closeness of the parent-child relationship.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, termination was in the best interests of the child and the father did not preserve error on his requests for a permissive exception or additional time.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Matthew A. Schuling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  She challenges the statutory grounds authorizing termination and whether termination is in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: The child could not be safely returned to the mother’s custody at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying a statutory ground for termination.  And termination is in the child’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Ashley West-Joons, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She argues (1) termination of her parental rights is not in the child’s best interests and (2) the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests and the mother failed to preserve her claim on the application of a permissive exception for review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, Richelle Mahaffey, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            A mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son.  OPINION HOLDS: We have appellate jurisdiction over the mother’s appeal despite her delay in filing the notice of appeal with the district court clerk.  The State proved a statutory ground for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) because the son could not be safely returned to the father’s custody—and the mother does not challenge that ground.  Termination is in the best interest of the son—any detriment from severing the parent-child bond does not outweigh the benefit from the son staying in his loving home with his grandmother and sibling.  And given the son’s young age and the mother’s lack of sustained progress, a guardianship is not the best choice for the son’s safety and stability.  We thus affirm the termination of both parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Cole Michael Johnson appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to four charges.  OPINION HOLDS: Johnson was adequately advised of the requirement of filing a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge his guilty plea and waived this right to do so, which precludes him from challenging his pleas on appeal.  Because Johnson has not established good cause to pursue his appeal as a matter of right, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss it.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Seven Divine appeals his convictions and sentences after pleading guilty to possession of ammunition as a domestic violence offender, domestic abuse assault, and first-degree harassment.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer, Ahlers, Badding, and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  Special Concurrence by Buller, J. Dissent by Greer, J. (25 pages)

            In a medical malpractice suit, the medical providers bring this interlocutory appeal and ask us to hold that Iowa Code chapter 668 (2020) applies to compare the fault of the medical providers with the fault of the released third-party jet ski defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that DeMoss v. Hamilton, 644 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2002), lends guidance, we hold chapter 668 does not apply to these facts.  We reverse and remand the district court’s decision.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Because I believe DeMoss v. Hamilton, 644 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2002) strongly nudges us to reverse, and the supreme court has not yet adopted section 35 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, I specially concur.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectively dissent from the majority opinion because I do not think DeMoss prohibits what the medical providers seek to accomplish, thus we need not extend or overrule its holding or even engage in that exercise.  I disagree with the majority finding that this malpractice action is a separate “claim” and so would find that Iowa Code chapter 668 applies here.  And under the reasoning of Jahn and section 35 of the Restatement (Third), I would apply those evolving legal concepts so that the appropriate defendant, including the released party, is responsible for its share of the enhanced injury.

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

            David Baugh appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He contends that the prosecutor’s subsequent criminal conviction for sexual abuse casts doubt on to the prosecutor’s actions in his own case.  Baugh does not claim innocence but argues instead that the plea negotiations were tainted by the prosecutor’s “unclean hands.”  OPINION HOLDS: Baugh’s claim fails because he has not shown how the prosecutor’s conduct was material to his decision to plead guilty.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of his postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Elizabeth Dupuich, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Carlos Hivento appeals his sentence for third-degree sexual abuse, arguing the district court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive term of imprisonment without adequate reasons and by ordering that Hivento complete sex-offender treatment while incarcerated.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence.  However, we agree with both parties that the court lacked statutory authority to order sex-offender treatment.  We vacate that part of Hivento’s sentence and remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt and Rustin Davenport, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher, Chicchelly, Langholz, and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Dissent by Sandy, J.  (25 pages)

            Rickie Withers Sr. appeals his convictions and sentences for four counts of second-degree sexual abuse and three counts of third-degree sexual abuse.  Withers challenges the district court’s decision to allow the guardian ad litem to sit next to a child witness during the child’s testimony; claims the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to continue when the prosecutor “provided late notice of additional witnesses and evidence”; and argues the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences without giving appropriate consideration to “his age and medical conditions.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review of the claims properly before us, we affirm Withers’ convictions and sentences.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would hold the district court abused its discretion by denying Withers’ motion to continue trial and prejudiced him.  I therefore respectfully dissent.