Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a juvenile offender whom the State tried as an adult, brought a postconviction relief action claiming that his conviction for first-degree murder should be overturned and that his sentence was illegal because it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal Constitutions. The district court dismissed both claims. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner made the same claims in the past, and thus, the law of the case doctrine precluded the court from revisiting them. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed in part the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the law of the case doctrine precluded Petitioner from attacking his conviction for first-degree murder; but (2) the doctrine did not preclude Petitioner from attacking his sentence as illegal because the controlling authority regarding cruel and unusual punishment had changed since his original appeal regarding the issue, and the three-year limitation period for bringing a postconviction relief action did not prohibit a challenge to an illegal sentence. Remanded. View "State v. Ragland" on Justia Law

Charles Oliver was convicted a second time of third-degree sexual abuse, and Oliver stipulated that he had a prior conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. Because of his prior conviction, Oliver was guilty of a class A felony under the enhanced sentencing provisions of Iowa Code 902.14(1), and the district court accordingly sentenced Oliver to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Oliver's sentence, holding (1) the sentence of life without parole did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the state and federal Constitutions when considered in light of the particular facts of Oliver's case; and (2) section 902.14(1) was not unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to Oliver. View "State v. Oliver" on Justia Law

On July 27, 2011, the Governor item vetoed several provisions in an appropriations bill passed in the General Assembly. Primarily at issue was $8.66 million the legislature appropriated in section 15 for the operation of Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) field offices. The Governor, without vetoing that appropriation, item vetoed (1) section 15(3)(c), prohibiting the closure of field offices; (2) section 15(5), defining "field office" to require the presence of a staff person; and (3) section 20, restricting use of IWD appropriations for the national certificate program. The district court upheld the item veto of section 20 but declared invalid the item veto of section 15(3)(c) and 15(5). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Governor's item vetoes of section 15(5) and section 20 did not comply with the item-veto amendment of the state constitution because the Governor unconstitutionally item vetoed "conditions or restrictions" on the appropriations without vetoing the accompanying appropriations; and (2) when the Governor impermissibly item vetoes a condition on an appropriation during the pocket veto period, the appropriation item fails to become law. Remanded for entry of judgment invalidating sections 15 and 20 of the bill. View "Homan v. Branstad" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana as an accommodation offense. Defendant was previously convicted of simple possession of marijuana. Defendant requested a sentencing hearing to determine whether he should be sentenced for a serious misdemeanor or an aggravated misdemeanor. The district court concluded the plain language of Iowa Code 124.410 and 124.401(5) provided Defendant be sentenced for a serious misdemeanor. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, holding that the court did not misinterpret or misapply sections 124.401(5) and 124.410 when it sentenced Defendant for a serious misdemeanor under the circumstances presented here. View "State v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Police officers initiated an investigatory encounter with William DeWitt in Walmart based initially on information provided to them by a confidential informant. The officers decided to confront DeWitt and take him outside to his car to talk to him about their suspicion he was selling drugs. One or both of the officers took DeWitt by the arm. DeWitt broke free from their grasp, and the officers responded by taking him to the ground and handcuffing him. DeWitt was subsequently convicted of possession with intent to deliver, violation of the drug stamp act, and interference with official acts. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying DeWitt's motion to suppress, as the officers' conduct in physically restraining DeWitt was not a violation of his right to be protected from unreasonable seizures under the state and federal constitutions; and (2) under the facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence was sufficient to support DeWitt's conviction. View "State v. DeWitt" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether an internal audit created by Broadlawns Medical Center as a result of the theft of drugs by an employee was a public record under the Iowa Open Records Act. The district court concluded that, because the internal audit was provided to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy in order to assist in its investigation of licensing matters arising from the theft, the internal audit amounted to investigative materials in the hands of a licensing board under Iowa Code 272C.6(4) and was not subject to disclosure. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment of the district court holding that the internal audit was not subject to disclosure, as the internal pharmacy audit was a public record, not a confidential record, and other statutory exceptions asserted to prevent public disclosure were inapplicable; and (2) affirmed the rulings of the district court that the plaintiff failed to establish the basis for nondisclosure under Iowa Code 22.7(61). View "Hall v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Employee injured his shoulder while working for Employer. Employer offered Employee light-duty work in Des Moines, which was 387 miles from Employee's residence. Employee declined Employer's offer to perform light-duty work, and as a result, Employer suspended Employee's workers' compensation benefits. Employee filed a workers' compensation claim. The workers' compensation commissioner concluded (1) Employer improperly suspended temporary disability benefits where Employer failed to offer Employee suitable work because the job was located a great distance from Employee's residence; and (2) Employee experienced a sixty percent industrial disability. The district court reversed in part, concluding that Employer offered Employee suitable work and thus, Employee forfeited his right to benefits during his period of refusal. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the commissioner did not err in finding Employer failed to offer Employee suitable work; and (2) the commissioner's findings with respect to the extent of Employee's industrial disability were supported by substantial evidence. View "Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

This case was remanded to the district court for determination of whether a class should be certified and for determination of what, if any, part of the City's franchise fees for gas and electricity services are related to its administrative expenses in exercising its police power. The district court certified a class, found the franchise fees cannot exceed $1,575,194 per year for the electric utility and $1,574,046 for the gas utility, entered judgment in favor of the certified class against the City in the amount by which such fees exceeded that amount for an approximately ten-year period, and retained jurisdiction to determine the amount of money to be refunded to members of the class. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as modified, concluding that certain amounts allocated or not allocated by the district court as proper components of the franchise fees should be modified. Remanded. View "Kragnes v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Iowa Educators Corporation (IEC) and ten Area Education Agencies (AEAs) comprising IEC, seeking (1) a declaration that the operation of IEC was in violation of Iowa Code 273 and 28E; (2) equitable relief enjoining the AEAs and IEC from further operation in violation of Iowa law; and (3) injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that the AEAs and IEC operate in violation of Iowa Code 23A. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Hawkeye lacked standing to bring the chapter 273 and 28E claims; and (2) Hawkeye failed to allege sufficient facts demonstrating it was entitled to relief under chapter 23A. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding that the district court erred in (1) dismissing Hawkeye's chapter 273 and 28E claims for lack of standing, as Hawkeye's petition alleged facts that gave it standing to challenge the actions of the AEAs and IEC; and (2) dismissing the action, as the factual allegations set forth in the petition, if proved, stated statutory claims sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. View "Hawkeye Foodservice Distrib., Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corp." on Justia Law

Rachel Overbay, the driver of a vehicle, was involved in an accident and transferred to the hospital. A law enforcement officer requested a blood sample from Overbay. Overbay, however, was incorrectly informed that her refusal of the requested chemical test would automatically lead to revocation of her driving privileges. In fact, Overbay's refusal of the blood test would not have been deemed final but would have led to her being offered a different chemical test. Overbay agreed to provide the blood sample, and the results showed a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. The State subsequently charged Overbay with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The district court granted Overbay's motion to suppress, finding that Overbay's consent to the blood test was not voluntary because it was based on misleading information. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding that consistent with precedent, inaccurate information does not render a driver's consent involuntary when the record indicates that the inaccuracy did not affect the driver's decision. Remanded. View "State v. Overbay" on Justia Law