Most Recent Opinions
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-0961
View Summary for Case No. 23-0961
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. (8 pages)
Champayne Renee Sandifer-Jackson appeals her sentence, claiming there was a binding plea agreement, and the district court abused its discretion. OPINION HOLDS: Sandifer-Jackson’s plea was not conditioned on the court’s acceptance of a particular sentence, and the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-0963
View Summary for Case No. 23-0963
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Peter B. Newell, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Potterfield, S.J. Opinion by Potterfield, S.J. (3 pages)
On discretionary review, Jesse DeGroote challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for simple-misdemeanor assault. OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports DeGroote’s conviction for assault, so we affirm.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1099
View Summary for Case No. 23-1099
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gregory D. Brandt, Judge. VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (12 pages)
The defendant appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that the sentencing court relied on unproven facts in making its sentencing decision, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1103
View Summary for Case No. 23-1103
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah E. Crane, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Schumacher and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (5 pages)
Noah Knight appeals from the parenting schedule set in an order awarding joint legal custody and joint physical care of his daughter with Athena Soumas. OPINION HOLDS: The alternating weekend parenting schedule is in the best interest of the parties’ daughter.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1151
View Summary for Case No. 23-1151
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph Seidlin, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (18 pages)
Dr. Qingli Meng challenges the district court’s denial of her petition for judicial review. OPINION HOLDS: Both the university-wide standards in chapter three of the Faculty Handbook as well as the old department-specific standards that Dr. Meng opted into governed the procedure here; therefore, the Committee and Head of the Department relied on the correct procedure in evaluating Dr. Meng’s application for tenure and the Board of Regents did the same in accepting their decision. Its decision to deny her tenure was rational, made with regard to the law and facts, and based on reasonable grounds. For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Dr. Meng’s petition for judicial review.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1174
View Summary for Case No. 23-1174
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Zachary Hindman, Judge. MODIFICATION AFFIRMED; WRIT ANNULLED. Considered by Bower, C.J., Langholz, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Bower, C.J. (20 pages)
Justin Olson appeals the district court’s order modifying the visitation provisions of a custody decree and finding him in contempt for depriving Sara Whitead parenting time with their child. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the modification of the parties’ custody decree. We further find substantial evidence Justin willfully violated the decree, and we annul the writ of certiorari. We deny Justin’s challenge to the district court’s award of trial attorney fees to Sara, and we award Sara $9842.50 in appellate attorney fees.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1239
View Summary for Case No. 23-1239
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (10 pages)
Raymond Wilson appeals the modification of the parties’ dissolution decree granting Staesha Fenton, formerly Staesha Wilson, sole legal custody of their two minor children. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Staesha established a material and substantial change in circumstances since entry of the dissolution decree warranting modification and Raymond has focused solely on his own interests, rather than the best interests of the children. We affirm the decision placing the children in Staesha’s sole legal custody. We decline to award Staesha appellate attorney fees.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1416
View Summary for Case No. 23-1416
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda D. Belcher, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. (17 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children. OPINION HOLDS: Because we find there was clear and convincing evidence of the statutory ground for termination in Iowa Code 232.116(1)(f) and (h) (2023), the best interests of the children are best served by termination, the permissive exception does not preclude termination, and the department met the active-efforts requirement under the Indian Child Welfare Act, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights. The mother did not preserve error on her request for six additional months.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1835
View Summary for Case No. 23-1835
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge. AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Bower, C.J. (9 pages)
A mother and father separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their children, claiming the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the juvenile court, termination is not in the children’s best interests, and the court should apply a permissive exception to preclude termination. OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm both appeals.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-1865
View Summary for Case No. 23-1865
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. (6 pages)
A mother appeals from a dispositional order in a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding. She challenges the juvenile court’s denial of her motion to reopen the adjudicatory record to allow the child at issue to testify. She also challenges the juvenile court’s decision to place custody of the child with the father and denial of her motion to change service providers. OPINION HOLDS: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the record. Placing custody of the child with the father is in the child’s best interests. There is no need to change service providers because the service provider is providing services and not hindering the reasonable-efforts mandate.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-2020
View Summary for Case No. 23-2020
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Kimberly Ayotte, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Carr, S.J. Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. (10 pages)
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. OPINION HOLDS: We find there is clear and convincing evidence in the record to support termination of the mother’s parental rights, termination is in the children’s best interests, and no exceptions to termination should be applied. And an extension of time is unwarranted under these facts. We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights.
Filed Mar 27, 2024
View Opinion No. 23-2038
View Summary for Case No. 23-2038
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Donna Bothwell, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (10 pages)
A father appeals the termination of his parental rights. He challenges the grounds for termination, argues termination is not in the children’s best interests, and requests the establishment of a guardianship or additional time to work toward reunification. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.