2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Jason D. Besler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  Special Concurrence by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the denial of a protective order prohibiting a father from contacting the parties’ minor child due to alleged sexual abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: We find substantial evidence supporting the district court’s determination that the mother did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the father sexually abused the child.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling denying the Iowa Code chapter 236A (2019) protective order.  We deny the father’s request for appellate attorney fees, as the father has cited no persuasive authority permitting us to honor that request.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I specially concur only to highlight my concern with the play therapist’s testimony.  In my view, her improper credibility opinion further diminishes her testimony.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Mullins, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Mahan, S.J.  Opinion by Mahan, S.J.  (5 pages)

            Kenyatta Harlston appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief, claiming “current PCR counsel was ineffective for failing raise [the claim that] prior PCR counsel was ineffective for not raising issues raised in this PCR.”  Harlston also raises several pro se claims.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the denial of Harlston’s application for postconviction relief.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Jeffrey L. Larson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (6 pages)

            Arthur Rutledge challenges the district court’s finding that his application for postconviction relief (PCR) based on a claim of actual innocence was time-barred.  OPINION HOLDS: Rutledge provided no evidence that would suggest he was prevented from having the DNA tested prior to his guilty plea or, at the very least, within the three-year period after his convictions.  Therefore, his PCR application is time-barred.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (12 pages)

            Joseph Edwards plead guilty to theft in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, both enhanced because he was a habitual offender.  In return, the State dismissed the other eleven counts and imposed concurrent sentences not to exceed fifteen years.  Edwards now contends his attorney failed to ensure the plea-taking court explained the nature of the habitual-offender enhancement.  Edwards also alleges his counsel allowed him to plead guilty when the record did not reveal a factual basis for his prior convictions.  OPINION HOLDS: After examining what is required of the district court in the prior-conviction colloquy, we find the court substantially complied in this case.  Thus, counsel did not breach an essential duty.  Also, because we find Edwards cannot show he was denied effective assistance of counsel, we affirm his convictions.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.  AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (14 pages)

            After the district court awarded Suheir Khalil spousal support, a property equalization payment, and attorney fees in this dissolution action, her husband, Sabet Teia, appealed asserting the awards were inequitable.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the spousal support award should be reduced to $500 per month for a period of five years but affirm the district court order in all other respects.  We award Suheir appellate attorney fees.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi Wittig, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J. (16 pages)

            Upon finding an officer improperly promised Michael Hillery leniency, the district court suppressed incriminating statements Hillery made and physical evidence obtained from him.  On interlocutory appeal, the State challenges that ruling in several ways.  First, the State contends the court should not have relied on the common law evidentiary test to suppress the evidence because Hillery did not raise that ground for suppression to the district court.  Second, the State argues in the alternative that even if the district court properly considered the evidentiary exclusion rule, the court erred in determining the officer’s statements to Hillery constituted a promise of leniency.  Third, the State maintains that even if the officer improperly promised leniency, only Hillery’s statements—not any physical evidence—should have been suppressed.  Hillery urges us to affirm the district court ruling granting his motion to suppress, and he argues alternative theories for doing so.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the officer did not make an impermissible promise of leniency to Hillery, we reverse the suppression of incriminating statements and evidence obtained on the basis of the common law evidentiary rule.  We have considered Hillery’s alternative grounds for suppression and find them without merit.  We reverse the district court ruling granting the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Sarah Crane, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (11 pages)

            Appellants appeal a district court ruling on judicial review affirming the dismissal of their petitions for partial commutation of future payments of workers’ compensation.  They argue the agency’s interpretation of the commutation statute is improper and the dismissal of their commutation petitions violates their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the agency decision.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County, David A. Lester, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, C.J.  (12 pages)

            Plaintiffs appeal from summary judgment granted to Lake Creek Area Sanitary Sewer District.  OPINION HOLDS: Because there is a question whether the statutorily-required notice was given, which must be determined by the fact finder, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Sewer District.  In addition, because the question remains whether the Sewer District had jurisdiction as to Sadusky, summary judgment on Sadusky’s claim that an excessive assessment was imposed and whether Sadusky received a benefit are also set aside.  We reverse and remand for further proceedings. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winneshiek County, Richard D. Stochl and Alan T. Heavens, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (10 pages)

            A nonprofit association appeals the dismissal of its conversion claim against a board member of a rival association.  OPINION HOLDS: Iowa Code section 504.901 (2017) provides the board member statutory immunity.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Chickasaw County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (11 pages)

            David Williams appeals his convictions of first-degree sexual abuse, third-degree sexual abuse, and incest.  As to all three convictions, Williams argues the district court allowed the State to elicit impermissible vouching testimony from two professionals who interviewed the alleged victim.  He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the serious injury element of his conviction of first-degree sexual abuse.  Finally, Williams argues the court erred in failing to merge his dual convictions of sexual abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion on Williams’s claim the court allowed impermissible vouching testimony.  We find the evidence sufficient to support the serious injury element of first-degree sexual abuse.  We conclude merger of the sexual-abuse convictions is not required.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John C. Nelson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (10 pages)

            Mark Besaw appeals from a denial of his suppression motion challenging the constitutionality of the stop of his vehicle.  OPINION HOLDS: The officer had sufficient description to create reasonable suspicion that Besaw’s pickup was the suspect vehicle, and additional information about damage to the pickup did not negate reasonable suspicion.  The question of whether the stop was unconstitutionally premised on a completed misdemeanor is not preserved on appeal, and we do not consider it.  Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Besaw’s motion to suppress.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages)

            Derrick Daniels appeals the district court order dismissing his second postconviction-relief (PCR) application on the State’s motion to dismiss.  The district court concluded Daniels’s illegal-sentence claim was without merit, and the other grounds raised in the second application had already been adjudicated in Daniels’s first PCR application and were thus barred under Iowa Code section 822.8 (2019).  On appeal, Daniels argues his prior appellate and first PCR counsel were ineffective in failing to raise a due-process challenge related to the admission of the video recording in which Daniels made incriminating statements.  OPINION HOLDS: The issue raised in this appeal was finally adjudicated on appeal in Daniels’s first PCR application.  As noted, our court has already determined Daniels cannot prevail on a PCR action based on ineffective assistance of counsel related to admission of the video recording because Daniels cannot show prejudice from the video’s admission.  Therefore, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this action based on admission of the video recording fails because that issue has already been resolved on the merits.