Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court denying Jane Doe's motion to expunge her record, holding that the condition in Iowa Code 901C.2, the expungement statute, that an individual pay all court-imposed costs and fees does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Iowa Constitutions.Section 901C.2 creates a statutory right to expungement subject to several conditions. Doe was an indigent defendant who was denied expungement for failure to pay off her court-appointed attorney fees. On appeal, Defendant argued that the condition that she pay her court-appointed attorney fees violated her equal protection rights. The district court denied Doe's constitutional challenge and denied her motion to expunge her record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the requirement to pay court costs, including court-appointed attorney fees, is rationally related to the government interest in collecting court debt. View "State v. Doe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting an employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' common law tort claim and ruling that Iowa Code 517.5 was constitutional, holding that the statute is not violative of equal protection, inalienable rights, or due process under article I, sections 1, 6, and 9 of the Iowa Constitution.Plaintiffs, employees and former employees of an Iowa manufacturing company, brought this action alleging that the insurance carrier failed to conduct or negligently conducted an insurance inspection at their employer's manufacturing facility, causing serious health problems for Plaintiffs. The insurance carried moved to dismiss the petition under section 517.5, which provides that "no inspection of any place of employment made by insurance company inspectors...shall be the basis for the imposition of civil liability upon the inspector or upon the insurance company..." The district court dismissed the actions after determining that the provision was constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there is no claim for negligent inspection against a workers' compensation carrier. View "Clark v. Insurance Co. State of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated the portion of Defendant's sentence regarding restitution, holding that remand was required because the district court did not have the benefit of the procedures outlined in State v. Albright, __ N.W.2d __ (Iowa 2019).The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that Defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The court further found that the district court did not err in assessing restitution for appellate attorney fees. The Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed Defendant's conviction, letting the court of appeals decision stand as this Court's final decision regarding Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As to Defendant's argument that the district court erred in ordering him to pay restitution in the form of appellate attorney fees without first determining his reasonable ability to pay those fees, the Court held that the restitution part of Defendant's sentence regarding those fees should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court to impose restitution consistent with this Court's decision in Albright. View "State v. Dieckmann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court sustained Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari filed after the district court summarily dismissed Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and denied appointment of counsel, holding that Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.28(1) requires the court to appoint counsel when an indigent defendant files a motion to correct illegal sentence under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(1).Defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to an indefinite term of imprisonment, ordered his placement on the sex offender registry, and imposed a special lifetime sentence pursuant to Iowa Code section 903B.1. After Defendant was discharged from prison, a parole judge revoked Defendant's parole and found him in violation of four parole conditions. The judge ordered Defendant to serve up to five years in prison. Defendant later filed a second motion for correction of an illegal sentence claiming that his lifetime special sentence was unconstitutional. Defendant also filed an application for appointment of counsel. The district court denied Defendant's motions. The Supreme Court sustained Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari, holding (1) Rule 2.28(1) affords a right to counsel on a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) Defendant was entitled to the appointment of counsel. View "Jefferson v. Iowa District Court for Scott County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that sex offender registration requirements are not punitive and convicting Defendant of failing to report his Internet identifier for a Facebook account he was using under an assumed name, holding that the Internet identifier reporting requirement withstands challenge under the First Amendment and article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution.Defendant pleaded guilty to lascivious acts with a child and was placed on the sex offender registry pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 692A. The legislature's 2009 amendment to that statute added the requirement that the offender disclose his Internet identifiers. Defendant was later charged with failing to report his Internet identifier. Defendant argued that the statute, as applied, violated the Free Speech and Ex Post Facto Clauses in the state and federal constitutions. The district court rejected Defendant's constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Internet identifier reporting requirement of Iowa Code chapter 692A.104(1) is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. View "State v. Aschbrenner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated certain portions of Defendant’s sentences, holding that the imposition of a surcharge violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state and federal constitutions and that the district court erroneously ordered restitution without determining Defendant’s reasonable ability to pay.Defendant pled guilty to lascivious acts with a child and sexual exploitation of a minor. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court failed to comply with Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b) in accepting his guilty pleas, did not adequately inquire into an alleged communication breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses by imposing a surcharge, and erred in ordering restitution without first determining his reasonable ability to pay. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant did not preserve error on his guilty pleas challenge; (2) the record on appeal was insufficient to conduct an ineffective assistance of counsel analysis and to determine whether the district court adequately inquired into the alleged communication breakdown; and (3) the surcharge and restitution were erroneously imposed. View "State v. Petty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for willful injury causing bodily injury and kidnapping in the first degree but vacated the restitution portion of the sentencing order and remanded the case to the district court to order restitution in a manner consistent with this opinion, holding that the restitution order did not comply with restitution law.Specifically, the Court held (1) substantial evidence supported Defendant’s conviction for first-degree kidnapping; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced when the court instructed the jury on a lesser included charge of kidnapping in the second degree; (3) this Court cannot reach Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (4) the lower court’s finding that Defendant had the reasonable ability to pay and ordering restitution for certain items without having the amount of each item of restitution before it was contrary to the statutory scheme as outlined in this opinion. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that challenged portions of Iowa Administrative Code rule 441-78.1(4) violate the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and determining that the Iowa Department of Human Services’ (DHS) denial of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgeries was reversible, holding that the rule violates the ICRA’s prohibition against gender-identity discrimination.At issue was the language of rule 441-78.1(4) pertaining to the exclusion of Iowa Medicaid coverage of surgical procedures related to “gender identity disorders” violated the ICRA or the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection clause. The district court concluded that the challenged portions of the rule violated both the ICRA and the Constitution and that the DHS’s denial of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgeries would result in a disproportionate negative impact on private rights and that the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) rule 441-78.1(4)’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery violates the ICRA as amended by the legislature in 2007; and (2) under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance the Court did not address the constitutional claim. View "Good v. Iowa Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

Upon rehearing in this case involving issues related to an automated traffic enforcement (ATE) system, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, Inc., holding that Plaintiffs’ challenges to the ATE system were unavailing.The City enacted an ordinance designed to authorize and implement the establishment of an ATE system and contracted that Gatso to install the system. Plaintiffs filed a class-action petition against Defendants claiming, among other things, that the ATE system as implemented violated the equal protection, due process, and privileges and immunities clauses of the Iowa Constitution and that the ordinance as implemented unconstitutionally delegated governmental power to a private entity. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court originally affirmed in part and reversed in part and then vacated its earlier opinion and granted the City’s petition for rehearing. On review, the Court held that it relied on an incorrect version of the City’s ATE ordinance in discussing the issue of preemption and then concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Behm v. City of Cedar Rapids" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of operating while intoxicated (OUI), second offense, holding that Defendant’s rights under Iowa Code 804.20 were not violated when a law enforcement officer denied Defendant’s request to call his wife until after sobriety testing occurred.Defendant was driving a motor vehicle when he was involved in an accident in the midst of a snowstorm. Because of the weather conditions, the law enforcement officer that responded to the scene transported Defendant to a protected location - the sally port of the nearby law enforcement center - for the completion of field sobriety testing. Before leaving the scene, Defendant asked to talk to his wife, but the request was denied. Defendant subsequently failed field sobriety tests. Defendant was later convicted of OUI. Defendant appealed, arguing that his rights were violated because he had been “restrained of his liberty” within the meaning of section 804.20 at the sally port. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s rights under section 804.20 were not violated when the officer refused to allow Defendant the opportunity to speak with his wife until after field sobriety testing had been completed at the sally port because the sally port was a location for testing, not a “place of detention” within the meaning of section 804.20. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law