2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Heather Lauber, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (15 pages)

    Invoking the “silent witness” doctrine, the district court allowed the State to admit into evidence a police body camera recording of a surveillance video showing Terence Manning, Jr., punching and kicking another man in a convenience store parking lot.  After seeing that video, the jury convicted Manning of willful injury causing serious injury.  On appeal, Manning claims that the court should have excluded the video exhibit based on his authentication and best-evidence objections.  He also challenges the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that he specifically intended to inflict serious injury.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence of Manning’s specific intent.  But because the district court erred in admitting the surveillance video without proper authentication, and that error was not harmless, we reverse Manning’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, James N. Daane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (11 pages)

            Tran Walker appeals the summary disposition of his application for postconviction relief.  He argues that he was entitled to a hearing and he presented questions of material fact regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Tran was not entitled to a hearing.  He failed to present any questions of material fact regarding his ineffective-assistance claims.  The district court correctly granted the State’s motion for summary disposition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (14 pages)

            Richard Radloff appeals the district court’s findings, following a bench trial on his wage-claim petition, that he was not owed either a bi-annual bonus or mileage bonus from PTC Trucking, LLC.  Because wages were not withheld, the district court found he was not entitled to liquidated damages, court costs, or attorney’s fees.  PTC Trucking argues it was not Radloff’s employer.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the bonuses were discretionary, not “wages” under Iowa Code chapter 91A (2020), and affirm on this basis.  Because PTC Trucking failed to raise its claim that it was not Radloff’s employer to the district court, we conclude that argument is not preserved for our consideration as an alternative basis to affirm.   

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, JJ., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Telleen, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A driver arrested after methamphetamine was discovered inside her borrowed vehicle challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for possession of a controlled substance.  OPINION HOLDS: Reviewing for legal error, we find the State presented just enough evidence to support a finding of constructive possession.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second degree, challenging the district court’s denial of a motion for mistrial.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we credit the district court’s advantaged position to assess prejudice when a witness mentioned the defendant’s “booking photo,” we find adequate record support for the court’s ruling and discern no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, David C. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages).

            A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s decision, finding that the mother abandoned the child pursuant to Iowa Code section 600A.8(3)(b) (2023).  Leaving the child with responsible individuals to shield the child from her drug addiction does not excuse the mother’s failure to maintain communication or contact with the child. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Amy Zacharias, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, P.J.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Dissent by Tabor, C.J.  (18 pages)

            Plaintiffs appeal the district court decision granting summary judgment after finding Iowa Code section 686D.6 (2022) precluded their claim.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the grant of summary judgment.  DISSENT ASSERTS:  Because I believe that the Roses created a jury question on the recklessness of the nursing facility’s actions, I respectfully dissent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Dustria A. Relph, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A plaintiff appeals the dismissal of her petition to set aside a will.  OPINION HOLDS: Based on the undisputed facts deemed admitted under the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.  Heard by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (29 pages)

            Austin Nelson appeals, and Kimberly Nelson cross-appeals, the decree dissolving their marriage.  Austin claims the district court erred in its award of sole legal custody of the parties’ two younger children to Kimberly, in its valuation of the parties’ closely held business, in its award of the business to Kimberly, and in its denial of his discovery requests of Kimberly’s work-related emails.  Kimberly claims the court erred by failing to award her retroactive child support, by failing to order Austin to provide a “new in box” iPhone for the two younger children, by failing to order Austin to reimburse her for the children’s expenses within thirty days, by declining to credit her for fifty percent of Austin’s “undisclosed” income, and by failing to order Austin to pay all expenses “required to complete the tax filings for 2022 forward.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm on appeal and affirm on cross-appeal. We decline to award appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Candelario Leon was charged with two counts of lascivious acts with a child.  The jury found him guilty on Count 2 and not guilty on Count 1.  Leon appeals claiming the verdicts are factually inconsistent.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no inconsistency between the verdicts and no merit to Leon’s arguments, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (3 pages)

            Justin Mayo appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) from his conviction for second-degree theft.  OPINION HOLDS: Because Mayo raises a different argument on appeal than he raised in his PCR application, he failed to preserve error for our review.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Clinton R. Boddicker, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J. (6 pages)

            James Corron appeals from a conviction for delivery of less than five grams of methamphetamine as a habitual offender.  Corron contends that the district court improperly denied his mid-trial request for substitution of counsel because of a “complete breakdown in the attorney-client relationship,” giving rise to a “personal conflict of interest” with his defense counsel.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon review, we affirm.