2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Joseph L. Tofilon, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to three of his children.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claims termination is not in the children’s best interests because permissive grounds to preclude termination exist, and argues the district court erred in denying his request for additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: Having found the statutory grounds satisfied, that no permissive exception should be applied, and that an extension of time is unwarranted, we affirm termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (7 pages)

            A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the State proved the grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence and termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Joan M. Black, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the statutory grounds for termination were established, termination is in the best interest of the child, the parent-child bond permissive exception does not apply, and additional time for reunification is not warranted. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Greg Milani, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            An applicant appeals the denial of postconviction relief from his incest, lascivious conduct with a minor, and third-degree sexual abuse convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: Because all of the applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel stem from counsel’s reasoned, strategic decisions, counsel did not breach any duty and we affirm the denial of postconviction relief.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (6 pages)

    Gary Wood Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief following his 2019 conviction for domestic abuse assault.  Wood claims his appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the admissibility of a redacted 911 call on direct appeal.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Wood did not establish prejudice, his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J. (7 pages)

            Robert Allen Fisher Jr. appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding substantial evidence supports the conviction, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Derek Johnson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (8 pages)

            After shooting his brother to death, Michael Hinners was charged with first-degree murder.  After a bench trial, the trial court found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.  The court determined that assault by intentionally pointing any firearm at another—the predicate public offense to Hinners’s involuntary manslaughter conviction—was a general-intent crime.  On appeal Hinners argues assault is a specific-intent crime and the court should have therefore considered his intoxication defense.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the crime of assault by intentionally pointing a firearm at another under Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c) is a general-intent crime.  Involuntary manslaughter, without a specific-intent element, is a general-intent crime.  Thus, the intoxication defense is not available to Hinners.  So, the district court committed no error in not addressing the intoxication defense.  We therefore affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Joshua Frank McCoy appeals the dismissal of his second petition for postconviction relief, after the district court found the petition was untimely.  McCoy asks this court to apply equitable tolling for second or successive petitions for postconviction relief that allege ineffective assistance of counsel in prior postconviction proceedings.  He argues section 822.3 (2023) without equitable tolling is unconstitutional.  OPINION HOLDS: We find courts have never applied equitable tolling to section 822.3 and the failure to do so is not unconstitutional.  We decline to apply equitable tolling, and, as a result, his appeal is untimely, and the district court properly dismissed his second petition for postconviction relief. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (6 pages)

            An applicant for postconviction relief (PCR) argues (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of his Alford plea and (2) his PCR counsel was ineffective in failing to properly present his trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the applicant’s trial counsel and PCR counsel were not ineffective, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John Telleen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Telleen, S.J., takes no part.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Dean Porter appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Porter admits his legal arguments are raised for the first time in this appeal, and because he presents no challenge to the district court’s rulings on the issues presented in his PCR application, we have nothing to review.  We therefore summarily affirm denial of postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Colleen Weiland, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; REVERSED AND REMANDED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (15 pages)

            Landowners appeal and the county board of supervisors acting as trustees for a drainage district cross-appeals the district court’s award of damages to the landowners after a drainage ditch project.  The landowners claim the district court erred in failing to award them “the cost to restore their farm lands with reliable functional field crossings” that can handle the increased water flow from the drainage ditch project.  On cross-appeal, the board claims the landowners are not entitled to any damages because the drainage district has a permanent easement for the drainage ditch.   OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the board, reverse the court’s damage awards, and remand for dismissal of the landowners’ petition.       

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., Schumacher, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J.  (11 pages)

    Damien Love appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a sentencing challenge, and a claim of actual innocence.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the court’s denial of Love’s application.