2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, Charles Borth, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            A plaintiff appeals the district court order denying her breach-of-contract petition relating to real estate.  OPINION HOLDS: Because she attempted to modify the terms of the contract before communicating acceptance, the plaintiff rejected the offer and no contract was formed.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (9 pages)

            Henry Lamont Myles appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing the district court wrongly denied the application because (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to explain the meaning of an “open” plea agreement to him and in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment after it became clear that Myles misunderstood the plea agreement and (2) he is actually innocent of the charge of kidnapping in the third degree.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding Myles’s trial counsel was not ineffective and Myles failed to show clear and convincing evidence that he was factually innocent of false imprisonment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Kerri Webber appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to Jeffery Thoene.  Kerri challenges the district court’s decision to place the parties’ child in their joint physical care.  She argues it is in the child’s best interests to be placed in her physical care.  Both parties seek appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Joint physical care best serves the child’s interests.  We decline to award either party appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Adria Kester, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of postconviction relief, urging his trial lawyer was ineffective for allegedly failing to convey a plea offer, advising him not to attend depositions for strategic reasons, and using the terms “fired” and “felony stop” in closing argument.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the applicant has not proven breach of an essential duty or prejudice, and deferring to the credibility findings of the postconviction court, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Tod Deck and Zachary Hindman, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J. (18 pages)

            A defendant found guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree appeals his conviction, challenging the (1) continuance of his case beyond the one-year speedy trial deadline, (2) denial of his motions for a mistrial and new trial after prospective jurors saw him in shackles, and (3) denial of his motion for substitute counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of the district court’s discretion on any of the claims of procedural error raised by Ellis.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; CROSS-APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (21 pages)

            Brian Shock appeals, and Dr. Matthew Kettman and Fiat Family Medicine, P.L.L.C., cross-appeal, from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a defamation lawsuit that Shock brought against Dr. Kettman and his medical clinic.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court that the statements Dr. Kettman made about Shock to state and federal law enforcement officers are qualifiedly privileged.  Because the court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants on that ground, their cross-appeal asserting alternative affirmative defenses is dismissed as moot. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A jury found Brian Woods guilty of interference with official acts with a dangerous weapon and carrying a weapon while under the influence.  On appeal, Woods argues (1) there is insufficient evidence that either of the two knives involved—a three-inch folding knife and a four-inch fixed blade knife—are a “dangerous weapon” and (2) the jury instruction defining dangerous weapon was incomplete.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in refusing to give Woods’s requested “dangerous weapon” instruction and instead giving the model instruction.  And substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that the knife in question was a dangerous weapon, so we affirm Woods’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J. (6 pages)

            Katrina Barnes appeals from her convictions for possession with intent to deliver, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and two counts of child endangerment.  She challenges the denial of her motion to suppress, arguing a search warrant for two duplex units was not supported by probable cause.  OPINION HOLDS: The search warrant was supported by probable cause with respect to both duplex units, and the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Alan Heavens, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (4 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of postconviction relief, challenging how his trial attorney handled alleged prior-false-allegations testimony under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the withdrawal of his Rule 5.412 motion at trial was an agreed-to strategic decision, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Amy M. Moore, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J. (4 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for felon in possession of a firearm, arguing he was entitled to a necessity instruction because he claimed he was moving the gun from a table where children might access it.  And the parties stipulate to an error in the sentencing order.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no legal error in the district court’s denial of the necessity instruction and that a nunc pro tunc order is appropriate to address the sentencing issue, we affirm and remand with directions to enter a nunc pro tunc order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph Seidlin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (4 pages)

            A postconviction-relief applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, raising two claims.  OPINION HOLDS: The applicant failed to preserve error on his first claim because he did not present it to and secure a ruling from the district court.  As to the applicant’s second claim on appeal, he has not developed any cogent argument or presented any supporting authority.  As a result, the applicant forfeited his second claim.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals from a ruling granting the mother’s petition to modify custody and physical care of their shared minor child.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the mother met her burden to prove modification of physical care and that the current visitation schedule is appropriate given the geographic distance of the parties, we affirm and decline to address the child‑support calculation.