Most Recent Court of Appeals Summaries

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Roger L. Sailer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, J. (9 pages)

            Jayme Powell appeals his convictions, claiming (1) “defense counsel had a conflict of interest between being paid for his services and his effective representation”; and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial after counsel “clearly informed the court he was providing ineffective representation to his client.” OPINION HOLDS: Because Powell failed to show the alleged conflict adversely affected his attorney’s performance, we reject his conflict-of-interest claim.  And we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of his motion for mistrial.  We accordingly affirm Powell’s convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Robin Alejandro Castillo Fuentes appeals his conviction for child endangerment.  OPINION HOLDS: Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence supports Castillo Fuentes’ conviction.  Accordingly, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Michael Roberson Jr. appeals his convictions for second-degree kidnapping while armed with a dangerous weapon and domestic abuse assault, third or subsequent offense, with an habitual offender status.  He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support these convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand to the district court for dismissal of the domestic abuse assault charge.      

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J. Andreasen, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (5 pages)

            Melton Carter appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana, third violation, as an habitual offender.  Carter challenges the court’s denial of his second motion to suppress.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Carter’s judgment and sentence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Christopher C. Polking (motion for in camera review) and Jennifer Miller (motion in limine and trial), Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Blane, S.J.*  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (19 pages)

            Trever Howland appeals following his convictions for three counts of second-degree sexual abuse, raising several claims.  OPINION HOLDS: Howland’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence.  The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to conduct an in camera review of the complaining witness’s mental-health records.  The State’s expert witness did not vouch for the complaining witness’s credibility.  While the district court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, reversal is not required because the testimony was duplicative of properly admitted testimony.  The court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial.  And Howland failed to preserve or waived his remaining claims on appeal.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph Seidlin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (7 pages)

            Kelly Sand appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He contends plea counsel was ineffective for not informing him of the “silent mandatory sentence” for the completion of sex offender treatment while in custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding parole eligibility is not a direct consequence of Sand’s guilty pleas, we reject the claim and affirm the denial of relief. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P. Odekirk, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Zachary Lindauer appeals from his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree.  He argues the district court erred in denying his request to admit the deposition testimony of a witness who failed to show up at trial because the witness was unavailable under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.804.  OPINION HOLDS: Even if the witness was unavailable, the district court’s denial of the admission of the irrelevant evidence was not improper.  Alternatively, if the district court erred in denying Lindauer’s request, any error was harmless.  We affirm Lindauer’s conviction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Kirk A. Daily, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Jesse McElroy appeals the sentence imposed after pleading guilty to operating while intoxicated, third or subsequent offense.  OPINION HOLDS: The sentencing court provided sufficient reasoning for exercising its discretion in imposing the habitual offender sentencing enhancement as the reasons for exercise of its discretion are obvious in light of the court’s statement and the record before the court.  Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Terry Rickers, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Julie Becker appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for writ of certiorari regarding an exception to a zoning ordinance authorized by the Dallas Center Board of Adjustment, arguing (1) the board lacked authority to grant the exception and (2) the board erred in concluding there was sufficient parking available to accommodate commercial activities.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the district court did not err in concluding the board had authority to grant an exception and substantial evidence supports the board’s finding that adequate parking was available.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Terry R. Rickers, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (11 pages)

            Following a trial to the bench, Dana Kirgan appeals her convictions for intimidation with a dangerous weapon and going armed with intent.  She challenges each conviction, arguing it is not supported by substantial evidence.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there was insufficient evidence to convict Kirgan of intimidation with a dangerous weapon, we reverse that conviction.  A reasonable factfinder could find evidence to convict Kirgan of going armed with intent but, because the district court applied the wrong standard in reaching its decision, we reverse Kirgan’s conviction and remand to the district court for new findings and conclusions as to that charge on the existing record. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Thomas J. Bice, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (14 pages)

            Matthew Davis appeals his convictions and the sentences imposed for two counts of third-degree sexual abuse and two counts of incest.  He contends the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his objection to allowing his wife, Patti, to testify about having been sexually abused as a child.  He maintains the verdicts are not supported by sufficient evidence and are contrary to the weight of the evidence.  Davis also asserts the court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.  OPINION HOLDS: The court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the admissibility of the evidence.  There is substantial evidence to support the convictions.  This is not the extraordinary case in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdicts.  And the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.  We thus affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adams County, Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (6 pages)

            The defendant appeals his conviction for operating while under the influence (OWI), third offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(c) (2020).  He contends there is insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol or a drug.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the jury had sufficient evidence to reach the conviction, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Ron Myers appeals from the order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Cedar Falls after concluding the city was shielded from liability by qualified immunity under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(l) (2020).  OPINION HOLDS: There is a fact question as to whether section 670.4(1)(l) applies.  As a result, the district court erred in granting summary judgment.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Joshua P. Schier, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J.  (4 pages)

            Ryan Maschmann appeals his suspended ten-year sentence for first-degree theft.  He argues that the district court erred by failing to state its reasons for that sentence.  OPINION HOLDS: While succinct, we find the court gave a reason for the chosen sentence, so we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Tyler Pohlman appeals the sentences imposed upon his criminal convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the district court was correct in concluding it could not suspend the fines on these serious misdemeanors, we find no legal error or abuse of discretion and affirm the sentences. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Heather L. Lauber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (9 pages)

            Brian Barry appeals from a judicial-review proceeding affirming denial of a review-reopening petition.  OPINION HOLDS: The commissioner did not abuse his discretion in rejecting the opinion of Barry’s expert or in evaluating the expert’s use of the AMA Guides when weighing credibility.  Substantial evidence supports the commissioner’s conclusion that Barry failed to carry his burden to prove his current condition warranted reopening his earlier disability award.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Laura J. Parrish, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Jamie Cole challenges the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his 2015 conviction for indecent exposure.  On appeal, Cole claims he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel in four ways; he points to the alleged denial of his right to testify, failure of counsel to withdraw (and allow him to represent himself, as he wished), denial of access to standby counsel, and denial of his right to legal resources.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the district court; Cole did not prove his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.  We affirm the denial of Cole’s PCR application. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Page County, Greg W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (6 pages)

            On interlocutory appeal, Seanna O’Brien challenges the dismissal of her personal-injury suit against the estate of Donald Ripley and its executor as barred by the two-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code section 614.1(2) (2022).  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm dismissal, concluding O’Brien’s potential status as a reasonably ascertainable creditor of the estate has no effect on whether the matter was barred by the general statute of limitations.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Ahlers, P.J.  (8 pages)

            A beneficiary of a will appeals a ruling denying a request to remove the executor and find a no-contest clause contained in the will triggered by the executor’s submission of a later will that was ultimately found to be invalid.  OPINION HOLDS: The executor’s submission of the later will did not amount to a challenge of the will and did not trigger the no-contest clause.  The beneficiary did not establish grounds to remove the executor.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Roger L. Sailer, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (10 pages)

            Wanda Horacek appeals the spousal-support award in the decree dissolving her twenty-five-year marriage to Ronald (Ron) Horacek.  She contests the district court’s award of rehabilitative spousal support in the amount of $700 per month for twenty-four months, claiming she is entitled to traditional spousal support for the remainder of her life in the amount of $1500 per month.  Wanda and Ron each ask us to award them appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: We modify the spousal-support award to give Wanda traditional alimony of $1000 per month until Ron retires or dies or Wanda remarries, cohabits, or dies—whichever occurs first.  We order Ron to pay $2000 of Wanda’s appellate attorney fees. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nicholas Scott, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights in this Iowa Code chapter 600A (2022) proceeding.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother abandoned the child.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel L. Block, Associate Juvenile Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            T.A., the father of the child at interest, J.T.A., appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights in a private termination proceeding.  He claims the court erroneously found he abandoned the child.  He also contends termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence supports the court’s determination that T.A. abandoned the child.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (10 pages)

                A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, ages seven and ten.  She challenges the statutory grounds for termination, argues the State failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite the family, and contends it was not in the children’s best interests to terminate her rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of ongoing substance-abuse issues and a history of emotionally harmful behavior by the mother, and despite the State’s reasonable efforts, we find termination was supported and in the children’s best interests.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court and she should have been afforded additional time to reunify with the children.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the order terminating the mother’s parental rights to the four children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P. Strausser, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.   Opinion by Buller, J.  (8 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding that R.E. could not be returned to her mother at the time of the termination hearing, that reasonable efforts towards reunification were made, and the juvenile court did not err in declining to grant an additional six months to work towards reunification.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children.  She claims there was insufficient evidence to support a statutory ground for termination, that termination was not in the children’s best interests, and that the court should have declined to terminate based on her close bond with the children.  OPINION HOLDS:  We find clear and convincing evidence supports termination.  Termination is in the children’s best interests.  We decline to apply an exception to termination.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Buller, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: The State established a statutory ground for termination, and termination is in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (10 pages)

            S.J. appeals the termination of her parental rights to two children, O.H. and J.Y.  W.H. separately appeals the termination of his parental rights to O.H.   Both parents maintain the statutory grounds are unsatisfied, termination is not in the best interests of the children, an exception should be granted due to the parent-child bonds, and a guardianship should be established.  The mother also requests an exception based on J.Y.’s placement with his father.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we affirm termination of both parents’ parental rights to their respective children. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  She claims the juvenile court violated her federal due-process rights by holding the termination hearing in her absence and without appointing counsel.  She also challenges the juvenile court’s best-interest determination and claims the parent-child bond should preclude termination.  OPINION HOLDS: The mother’s due-process claim is not preserved.  Termination is in the child’s best interests.  The mother did not preserve her claim that a permissive exception based on a parent-child bond should be applied, and, even if she had preserved it, the mother did not establish that termination would be detrimental to the child due to the claimed bond.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Joseph B. McCarville, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the dispositional order confirming her child is a child in need of assistance and removing the child from her care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because placement with the mother was not appropriate without further supervision nor in the child’s best interests, we affirm the juvenile court’s dispositional order confirming continued removal from the mother.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Stephanie Forker Perry, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to four children, contending the State failed to prove the grounds for termination cited by the district court and termination was not in the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Talkington, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights, arguing she should have been granted additional time to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude additional time is not warranted and affirm termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We find clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground for termination and affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Hans Becker, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLD: We deny the mother’s request for more time because clear and convincing evidence shows that continuing the children’s placement for six months would not eliminate the need for the children’s removal.  Termination is in the children’s best interests, and there is no basis for preserving the mother’s parental rights based on the relationship between the mother and the children.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lynn Poschner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (3 pages)

            The juvenile court terminated the father’s parental rights to E.V., born in 2016, under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(b), (e), and (f) (2023).  On appeal, the father focuses his challenge on whether termination of his parental rights is in E.V.’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: E.V. needs and deserves permanency, and termination of the father’s parental rights will allow her to achieve it.  We affirm the juvenile court.