2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Tabitha Turner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    The defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating while intoxicated, arguing the sentencing court abused its discretion because the presentence investigation reporter held a fixed policy for its sentencing recommendation, the court “fixated” on his prior vehicle accidents, and the court should have ordered probation rather than incarceration.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning and sentence, so we affirm.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard Stochl (unjust-enrichment counterclaims) and John J. Sullivan (quiet-title action), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (14 pages)

            Michael and Bonnie Mulhern, executors of the estate of Cecelia Schimmel, appeal the district court’s grants of summary judgment (1) dismissing their quiet-title action under Iowa’s marketable-record-title statute for farmland that Schimmel originally inherited under the Kruger will and (2) ordering them to pay a portion of the crop-share rents received after Schimmel’s death on the Kruger-will remainder beneficiaries’ counterclaims for unjust enrichment.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly granted summary judgment on the estate’s quiet-title claim.  Schimmel inherited only a life estate under the Kruger will.  And the clerk’s certificate of change of title—which did not note that Schimmel’s interest was only a life estate—is not “a conveyance or other title transaction” under the marketable-record-title statute.  So the remainder beneficiaries’ interest in the farmland is not extinguished by that statute.  And because the estate did not preserve its challenges to the court’s method of apportioning the rents between the estate and the remainder beneficiaries for the year Schimmel died, we cannot consider the merits of that ruling on the beneficiaries’ unjust-enrichment counterclaim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Brad and Nancy Worrell appeal the district court’s judgment granting in part and denying in part their claim of adverse possession against Lake Crest Manor Home Owners Association.  They argue that the court erred in refusing to find their claim established for an additional parcel of land because their use of the additional land was “factually the same” as the smaller parcel of land for which the court found they established adverse possession.  OPINION HOLDS: Lake Crest Manor Home Owners Association does not cross-appeal.  So whether the Worrells proved all the requirements for adverse possession for that smaller parcel is not before us.  And we agree with the district court that the Worrells did not prove adverse possession for the additional parcel because the record lacks clear and positive proof that they had a good-faith claim of right to the land or that their use rose to the level of hostile, actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession for ten years.  We thus affirm the district court’s judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Andrew B. Chappell, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Jessica Dayton appeals the denial of her application for postconviction relief from her conviction of first-degree murder.  OPINION HOLDS: Dayton’s due process claim is barred by Iowa Code § 822.8.  But even if we were to set section 822.8 aside, Dayton was not denied due process when the State presented minor discrepancies in its theory of the case at two other trials.  With respect to her other claims, Dayton fell short of proving her trial counsel was ineffective.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J. (11 pages)

            Brandon Nelson appeals following his thirteen criminal convictions related to a high-speed chase and firearm altercation with law enforcement.  On appeal, Nelson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting four of his convictions: (1) assault on a peace officer while using or displaying a dangerous weapon; (2) interference with official acts while armed with a firearm; (3) going armed with intent; and (4) attempted murder of a peace officer.  He also contends that the district court abused its discretion during sentencing by failing to consider his expressions of remorse.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports Nelson’s convictions on all challenged counts.  The district court properly considered Nelson’s expressions of remorse and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Tajh Ross appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Ross cannot show a reasonable probability that he would have received a new trial if counsel had timely applied for further review after this court affirmed the denial of his first application for postconviction relief, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (26 pages)

            Dianne Christopher appeals a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendants on her claims alleging defamation and invasion of privacy.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael Carpenter, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (3 pages)

            Venhure Yosef Tsegay appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the PCR court thoroughly addressed the issue in its ruling, we affirm by memorandum opinion.  See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d).

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (18 pages)

            Two defendants appeal an adverse jury verdict in a coemployee gross negligence action arising from Michael Griffith’s death at work, claiming they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, that the district court erred in the gross negligence jury instructions given, and allege evidentiary issues in admitting administrative citations and certain testimony.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding substantial evidence existed on the gross‑negligence claim for a reasonable jury to find the defendants liable, they are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the court did not err submitting the questions to the jury.  We find no legal errors in the jury instructions, determine any error in references to evidence underlying the citations was harmless, and the testimony of a treatment provider and a therapist was proper.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (11 pages)

            David Jacobs appeals an order modifying the legal-custody and physical-care provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Temeshia Bomato.  He claims the district court erred in granting Temeshia’s request for sole legal custody and physical care of the parties’ child.  He also challenges the district court’s denial of his request to modify the summer-visitation provisions of the parties’ original decree.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s modification order.  We decline to award appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (11 pages)

            Trashon Montgomery appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary and willful injury causing serious injury, challenging the trial court’s admission of prior-bad-acts evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict on both counts.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimony regarding Montgomery’s prior assaults on the victim, and we find sufficient evidence to convict Montgomery on each of the elements he challenges on appeal.  We therefore affirm his convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher C. Polking, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  Dissent by Langholz, J.  (22 pages)

            An applicant appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his first application for postconviction relief, arguing that his postconviction-relief counsel was ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: Limiting our review to the claim actually briefed, and finding Uranga did not prove counsel was ineffective, we affirm. DISSENT ASSERTS:  If Iowa’s statutory right to counsel in postconviction-relief proceedings still guarantees that court-appointed counsel will assist—rather than abandon—their clients, that right was violated here. The majority’s contrary conclusion runs afoul of governing precedent and the underlying principles of fundamental fairness.  Because abandoning Uranga without a voice in the court’s summary disposition of his claims could never be an ethical strategy, we do not need any more evidence to find that Uranga’s counsel breached an essential duty.  Since this conduct left Uranga constructively without counsel at a crucial stage of the postconviction-relief proceeding and thus rendered the entire proceeding presumptively unreliable, Uranga is entitled to reversal without proving any further prejudice.  And Uranga presents this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in his briefing to us—so we should not avoid following the governing law based on a hyper-technical reading of his arguments.  I would thus reverse and remand for further proceedings with the effective assistance of counsel to which Uranga is entitled.