2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            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.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (7 pages)

            James Tate appeals his convictions following his conditional guilty pleas, challenging the denial of his motion to compel evidence involving a confidential informant.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Tate failed to preserve error on his challenge concerning the confidential informant and Tate has presented no legal authority to support his argument that the district court applied the wrong standard in the ruling on the motion to compel, as required by Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3), we do not reach the merits of his claim. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (3 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of postconviction relief claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the applicant as a witness.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the applicant failed to meaningfully address structural error or the elements of an ineffective-assistance claim, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Meghan Corbin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (13 pages)

            Quintin Clemons appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to move to suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search.  OPINION HOLDS: On our de novo review, we agree with the district court that Clemons failed to prove a breach of an essential duty because a motion to suppress the evidence would have been meritless.  The evidence was initially found in a lawful pat-down search.  And then it was not actually removed from his pocket and seized until later during a search incident to his arrest.  So we affirm the denial of Clemons’s application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Valerie L. Clay, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (10 pages)

            David Hering appeals the district court’s ruling dismissing his petition for judicial review.  He claims the district court incorrectly determined that (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition and (2) his petition failed to state claim upon which relief may be granted.  Additionally, he appeals the district court’s ruling denying his motion for sanctions against an attorney for the Iowa Department of Corrections.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find Hering’s petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we affirm.  We also find the district court did not commit an abuse of discretion by denying his motion for sanctions.