2020 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court’s termination of his parental rights.  OPINION HOLDS: We conclude termination is appropriate under Iowa law and consistent with the child’s best interest.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Colin J. Witt, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three-year-old daughter.  He contends the juvenile court should have given him an additional six months to work toward reunification and it was not in his daughter’s best interests to terminate his rights.  OPINION HOLDS: A.D. has spent two of her three years of life outside of the father’s care.  After a previous child-in-need-of-assistance case was closed, the father had a severe relapse into alcoholism, resulting in A.D. being inadequately supervised.  Although the father has made recent efforts toward sobriety and stability, we are not convinced he has demonstrated his ability to maintain long-term sobriety outside the prison or treatment setting.  Under these circumstances, we are not confident the need for removal would no longer exist in six months.  We further find it was in A.D.’s best interests to terminate the father’s rights and pursue a permanent home for her after so long out of his care.  We affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Scott Strait, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Blane, S.J.  Opinion by Blane, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to one child, challenging the statutory grounds for termination.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our de novo review, we conclude the State proved the grounds by clear and convincing evidence.  Therefore, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, Joseph B. McCarville, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., Mullins, J., and Potterfield, S.J.  Opinion by Potterfield, S.J.  (4 pages)

            The mother challenges the termination of her parental rights to her child, K.S.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered each of the issues raised by the mother, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton Ploof, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to, K.L., one of her four children.  OPINION HOLDS: Although the risk of adjudicatory harm to the three oldest children is low, clear and convincing evidence shows K.L. would be at risk if returned to the mother’s care, satisfying the grounds for termination under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019).  Because the State made reasonable efforts to return the child to the mother’s custody and granting the mother additional time would not eliminate the need for the child’s removal, we affirm the termination of the mother’s parental rights to K.L.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the juvenile court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Joel Dalrymple, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (6 pages)

            Gary Alexander appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief (PCR) following his conviction of one count of second-degree sexual abuse and two counts of third-degree sexual abuse.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon the record made below, we have no choice but to affirm the denial of Alexander’s PCR application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Todd A. Hensley, District Associate Judge.  CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (12 pages)

            Jeffrey Krone appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance—methamphetamine—following the entry of his guilty plea.  OPINION HOLDS: Krone did not move in arrest of judgment to preserve for appellate review the alleged defects in his guilty plea.  Thus, we do not consider the issue.  Because the record is undeveloped, we cannot decide Krone’s claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Finally, we vacate Krone’s sentence and remand the case to the district associate court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.  We affirm in all other respects.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by May, J.  (12 pages)

            Plaintiff purchased heavy-duty trucks manufactured by one defendant and sold by another.  Plaintiff claims the trucks were defective.  Plaintiff claims the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to its claims of breach of warranty and breach of contract.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Richard B. Clogg, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (14 pages)

            Chung Chris Lo appeals his conviction for first-degree fraudulent practice.  OPINION HOLDS: I. Lo fails to show his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the fraudulent practice statute as unconstitutionally vague and therefore void.  The term “participating” as used in the statute is of common usage and understandable.  And the statute is not vague as applied to Lo because the State was not required to show that Lo was a provider “participating” in the Medicaid program, only that he aided and abetted a provider participating in the program.  II. Sufficient evidence supports Lo’s conviction because it shows he failed to disclose that he was permanently excluded from participation in the Medicaid program while aiding and abetting his wife and nephew, who owned a company that was a Medicaid provider.  III. Lo cannot show the trial court’s omission of a portion of his requested instruction on “mistake of law” prejudiced him.  IV. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lo’s motion for mistrial because testimony by a State witness that Lo and his wife were involved in a scheme to defraud Medicaid did not render the jury unable to reach an impartial verdict.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Schumacher, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, J. (14 pages)

            Douglas Lindaman appeals a jury verdict finding him guilty of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.  He challenges the selection of the jury, criticizes the court’s allowance of expert testimony, and contests his sentence and the charging instrument.  OPINION HOLDS: On the jury-selection issue, we find Lindaman unable to show prejudice.  We see no other ground for reversal.  We thus affirm his conviction. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P. Werling and Patrick A. McElyea, Judges.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mullins, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J. (9 pages)

            Bryan Bejarano Moreno appeals his following his conviction and sentence for first-degree burglary.  He claims counsel was ineffective and the district court erred in awarding restitution without determining his ability to pay and requiring him to request an ability-to-pay hearing with respect to his appellate attorney fees.  OPINION HOLDS: Counsel was not ineffective.  The district court erred in ordering category-two restitution without making an ability-to-pay determination.  The district court erred in including language in the sentencing order that requires a defendant request an ability-to-pay hearing with respect to appellate attorney fees.