2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Erica Crisp, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Parents separately appeal from the termination of their parental rights to two of their children.  Both parents claim the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the children’s best interests due to the bond they share with the parents, and the court should have permitted a six-month extension to termination proceedings.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm both appeals.

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

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, born in 2023, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), (g), and (h) (2025).  She challenges each of the three steps in our termination analysis and alternatively asks for more time to reunify with the child.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother failed to contest termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(d), we affirm on that unchallenged ground.  We also find that termination is in the child’s best interests, the mother’s permissive-exception argument is not preserved for our review, and an extension of time is unwarranted. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their respective parental rights.  Both parents claim that the State failed to establish a statutory ground for termination and the juvenile court should have applied a permissive exception to preclude termination based on their respective bonds with their children.  OPINION HOLDS: As to the father, we conclude that his children could not be returned to his custody at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying a ground for termination.  We do not apply a permissive exception to preclude termination of his parental rights.  As to the mother, the children could not be safely returned to her custody at the time of the termination hearing, satisfying a statutory ground for termination of her parental rights.  And we do not apply a permissive exception to preclude termination of her parental rights either.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (11 pages)

            The biological parents separately appeal from an order terminating their parental rights.  The father challenges the statutory ground relied on by the district court.  And both parents contend termination is not in the child’s best interests, the district court should have granted additional time for reunification efforts, and their respective bonds with the child should preclude termination.  The mother also challenges the reasonable efforts finding by the district court.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, 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, asking us to apply a permissive exception to termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother failed to preserve error, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (10 pages)

            A mother and father both appeal the termination of their parental rights to their daughter, arguing that the State failed to prove a ground for termination, termination is not in the best interest of the daughter, and that the juvenile court should have granted them additional time to work towards reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: The State proved the statutory ground for terminating the mother’s and father’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) (2024) because the daughter could not be returned to either parent’s care at the time of the termination hearing.  And termination of the mother’s and father’s parental rights is in the best interest of the daughter because of the safety concerns that are still present and the parents’ failure to address their mental-health concerns.  What’s more, the daughter is doing well in her current foster care placement and is bonded with her foster mom.  Additional time for reunification is not appropriate here as the daughter deserves permanency now.  We thus affirm on both appeals.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a seven-year-old son.  She contends the State failed to prove the statutory ground for termination and that the juvenile court erred in denying her motion for active efforts, asserting her child is an Indian child under the Iowa Indian Child Welfare Act.  OPINION HOLDS: We find sufficient proof that returning the child would expose him to adjudicatory harm.  And the record does not show that the child is an Indian child, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt J. Stoebe, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Ahlers, J., takes no part.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (14 pages)

            Sisters Shelly Zabel and Jacqueline Oberhelman (Jackie) filed competing petitions to be named guardian and conservator of their mother, Mary Zabel, who has advanced dementia.  Following a four-day trial, the district court selected Shelly to be guardian and Green State Credit Union to be the conservator; it suspended a 2012 durable medical power of attorney giving Jackie certain powers.  Jackie appeals, challenging the court’s guardianship decision and the suspension of the power of attorney.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Shelly guardian rather than Jackie; we affirm that decision.  But the court lacked authority to suspend Mary’s 2012 medical power of attorney naming Jackie as her agent in this circumstance, so we reverse that decision. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (6 pages)

            An applicant convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary appeals the denial of his application for DNA profiling under Iowa Code section 81.10 (2022).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant filed his application for DNA profiling as a standalone case and the district court did not take judicial notice of his underlying criminal case or his pending postconviction-relief proceeding, the records in those other cases are not before us.  On the merits, the district court properly denied his application because all requested samples were already profiled and the applicant failed to allege any new method or technology for retesting the samples.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Langholz, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (4 pages) 

            Ceeron Williams appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) from his convictions for assault with the intent to inflict serious injury, intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, and willful injury causing serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the PCR court that Williams failed to establish that his trial counsel breached an essential duty and failed to show prejudice resulted from any of the claimed breaches.  Because we cannot provide any better reasoning or analysis than that found in the PCR court’s well-reasoned order, we affirm with this memorandum opinion.  See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d), (e).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Christopher C. Foy, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Telleen, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Moises Erreguin-Labra appeals his convictions for third-degree sexual abuse and assault causing bodily injury, arguing the district court’s response to a report of unauthorized courtroom photography biased his jury and denied his right to a fair trial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Erreguin-Labra raised no objection to the court’s actions at trial, his sole challenge on appeal is not preserved for our review.  We affirm his convictions without reaching the merits of his jury bias claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher, Badding, Buller, and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  Special concurrence by Tabor, C.J.  (22 pages)

            Will Young Jr. appeals his convictions and sentences for willful injury causing serious injury and intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent.  He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, urging this court to reach that claim by finding Iowa Code section 814.7 (2023) unconstitutional.  Young also contends that the State failed to prove the “reasonable apprehension” element of his intimidation charge, and that the district court was unaware it had discretion to reduce his minimum sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: We reject Young’s argument that Iowa Code section 814.7 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.  We therefore lack authority to decide his ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal.  We further conclude that Young’s conviction for intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, as marshaled at trial, is supported by sufficient evidence.  We find no evidence of a lapse in the district court’s sentence discretion.  Accordingly, we affirm.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: The majority properly finds Young’s interest in vindicating his Sixth Amendment right can be diverted to postconviction proceedings without violating the Supremacy Clause.  But in my view, he makes a powerful case that “the Iowa legislature’s determination that most ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are better resolved in collateral proceedings cannot countermand the Sixth Amendment’s requirement that states provide indigent defendants with effective representation.”  I write separately to underscore that serious doubt remains whether vindication in postconviction relief proceedings—on a practical level—will come quickly enough to deliver justice.