2026 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Christopher L. Bruns, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (17 pages)

            A homeowner, Michael Holmstedt, appeals the district court’s summary-judgment ruling dismissing his declaratory judgment action against his condominium association’s board of directors, the Lexington East Unit One Owners Association, and the court’s order awarding attorney fees to the Board. He argues that a fact dispute remains about whether the limited financial reviews obtained by the Board for 2018, 2020, and 2022 comply with the requirement in the association’s bylaws for “an audit of the accounts and financial records of the Association.” And he argues that the court erred in awarding the Board attorney fees under a bylaws provision that it concluded authorizes attorney fees in any suit in which the Board is a party. OPINION HOLDS: The court did not err in granting summary judgment. While Holmstedt’s interpretation of the bylaws’ audit requirement is not unreasonable, he failed to generate a material factual dispute because the Board’s interpretation is also reasonable and entitled to deference under the bylaws and the business-judgment rule. But we agree with Holmstedt’s challenge to the attorney-fees award. The bylaws provision relied on by the district court—when properly interpreted in its full context—only authorizes attorney fees when the association sues for a money judgment on unpaid assessments or other sums due or to foreclose on its assessment lien. Neither situation exists here. So we reverse the attorney-fees award based on that bylaws provision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J. (7 pages)

            The applicant appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief alleging his trial and postconviction counsel were ineffective.  He contends trial counsel coerced him to plead guilty and he did so only under duress.  He also contends neither trial nor PCR counsel effectively investigated his claim of actual innocence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find neither attorney failed in any essential duty, we affirm the denial of relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable Linda M. Fangman, Judge. AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Marlon Harris Jr. appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, arguing the district court erred in rejecting his claim that trial counsel failed to fully investigate an intoxication defense to Harris’s first-degree robbery charge.  OPINION HOLDS: Harris failed to present proof of the existence of any evidence that he complains trial counsel failed to investigate or present at his trial.  Because he has failed to show prejudice, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, The Honorable Joel W. Barrows, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. (8 pages)

            A defendant appeals his convictions of first-degree arson and first-degree murder, arguing the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the individual who committed those crimes. OPINION HOLDS: Because sufficient evidence supports his convictions, we affirm on both counts.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Kevin McKeever, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, C.J. Special concurrence by Sandy, J. Dissent by Badding, J. (24 pages)

            A defendant appeals his convictions for murder and going armed with intent. He contends the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant his for-cause challenge regarding a jury member who knew of his prior guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find the juror had actual bias under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(5)(o), we reverse and remand for a new trial. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I concur in result but concur separately to emphasize that when a juror’s continued service requires their suppression of information the law forbids the jury to hear, the error is not cured by that juror’s promise “not to tell the other jurors.” DISSENT ASSERTS: Rule 2.18(5)(o) is concerned with actual bias—and that is lacking here.  Because R.L. expressed no actual bias against Walker, and the circumstances did not otherwise indicate R.L. could not remain impartial, I would defer to the district court’s privileged position to determine R.L.’s fitness for jury service.  I would also affirm the district court’s findings on the other two issues Walker raises in this appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, The Honorable Kathryn E. Austin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Ricardo Velez Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence for harassment in the second degree.  On appeal, he combines a weight-of-the-evidence and sufficiency challenge to the State’s proof on whether he made a threat to commit bodily injury.  He also challenges the district court’s decision to run his sentence consecutively to the sentence in another case. OPINION HOLDS: Velez’s challenge to the weight of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review.  The evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for harassment in the second degree, and the district court provided adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.  Accordingly, we affirm Velez’s conviction and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, The Honorable John Telleen and The Honorable Henry Latham II, Judges. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Telleen, S.J., takes no part. Opinion by Buller, J. (9 pages)

            A criminal defendant appeals his recidivist conviction for domestic abuse assault, contesting the admission of an unavailable witness’s statements and arguing the district court denied him a bifurcated trial on his prior convictions OPINION HOLDS: Because the State met its burden to prove forfeiture-by-wrongdoing, we affirm the conviction. As to the bifurcated trial issue, we find the district court erred in denying the defendant a bifurcated trial and vacate the recidivist enhancement and remand with directions.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Katie Ranes, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Vogel, S.J. Opinion by Vogel, S.J. (4 pages)

              A daughter appeals a district court order compelling her to cover all fees and costs associated with her petition to establish a guardianship and conservatorship for her mother, which was voluntarily dismissed two weeks after filing. OPINION HOLDS: Because good cause supports the court’s fee order, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm. We further award respondent’s counsel $3,100 in appellate attorney fees.

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Gregory D. Brandt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (11 pages)

              Peter Vannausdle appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicating after a conditional guilty plea, challenging only the denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the district court erred in failing to suppress: (1) statements about his drinking that he made during the traffic stop because the deputy sheriff did not first advise him of his Miranda rights and (2) evidence of his refusal to submit to chemical testing because the deputy violated his rights to see his father in person and to call an attorney under Iowa Code section 804.20 (2023). OPINION HOLDS: Vannausdle was not in custody during the deputy’s traffic-stop questioning, so Miranda’s protections did not apply. Neither did the deputy hinder Vannausdle’s exercise of his rights under section 804.20. Vannausdle made multiple phone calls to family members, and the deputy’s response to questioning during one of those calls that Vannausdle’s father would have to wait to take Vannausdle home did not violate section 804.20. So too did Vannausdle have ample chance to call an attorney, and the deputy had no duty to take further action to facilitate a call because of Vannausdle’s comments about an attorney.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Mark D. Fisher, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, J. (9 pages).

            Aaron Secor appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief, asserting the district court erred in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective by failure to move for a mistrial and not filing motions in arrest of judgment or for new trial, and that appellate counsel was not ineffective by raising a single unpreserved claim on direct appeal. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, The Honorable Tom Reidel, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Sandy, J. (16 pages)

            Marchant appeals his convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and invasion of privacy, claiming (1) the State presented insufficient evidence that he had knowledge or responsibility for the hidden cameras and the nude videos and images. He claims the district court abused its discretion in (2) excluding evidence that a topless photo of the victim had been found on the victim’s cellphone; (3) admitting an extraction report of Google emails referencing purported phone factory reset attempts; (4) excluding a text message exchange between the victim’s mother and her paramour; and (5) admitting evidence of bookmarks to stepfather/stepdaughter-related pornographic websites. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Nathan Brocks appeals the district court’s order denying his application for postconviction relief.  He contends his first-degree burglary conviction was the product of ineffective assistance because trial counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence showing the apartment he entered was “an occupied structure in which one or more persons are present.” Iowa Code § 713.3 (2019).  OPINION HOLDS: Because the defense Brocks alleges would have been meritless under our supreme court’s binding precedent, we find no breach of duty or prejudice in counsel’s failure to raise it.  We therefore affirm the denial of postconviction relief.