UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Supreme Court Grants Further Review in Five Cases

by Ryan Koopmans | January 26, 2012

By Ryan Koopmans

The Supreme Court announced today that on January 11 it granted further review in five cases:

State v. Jones, 09-0146: The Court of Appeals affirmed Arzel Jones’ convictions for kidnapping, sexual abuse, and assault in two separate cases.  Jones presented several issues on appeal, including whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that he used a fork as a dangerous weapon.  

State v. Clark, 10-0511: The defendant, Donald Clark, was convicted for sexual abuse.  Five days before trial the prosecution produced an email written by the victim, in which the victim disclosed that he had been seeing and hearing things.  The defendant asked for a continuance to conduct additional depositions regarding the email, but the trial court denied that motion, and a majority of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Judge Mullins dissented.

ACLU v. Records Custodian, 11-0095: The ACLU filed an open records request with the Atlantic Community School District seeking information about the discipline of two school employees who were allegedly involved in a locker-room strip search of five female students. The school refused to produce the documents, claiming they were “essentially in house, job performance documents” which are exempt from the open records laws.  The district court agreed, and so did a majority of a panel of the Court of Appeals.  Judge Potterfield dissented.

Flynn Builders, L.C. v. Lande, 10-1278: In the Court of Appeals, the defendants raised eleven issues related to the enforcement of the plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien.  The Supreme Court’s order does not indicate whether it will limit the questions presented on further review. 

Ennenga v. State, 10-1911: Roger Ennenga filed for post-conviction relief, claiming his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss.  The trial information was not filed in the clerk’s office within forty-five days, and Ennenga argues that this failure violated the speedy indictment act.  Distinguishing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Schuessler, 561 N.W.2d 40 (Iowa 1997)—which did find a violation for failing to timely file the trial information within that time period—the Court of Appeals rejected Ennegna’s claim.  Ennenga was arraigned within forty-five days, and he received a copy of the trial information at that time.  Thus, the three-judge panel ruled that the “clerical or technical mistake” of failing to file the trial information on time would not have resulted in the dismissal of the charges.

Tags: Further Review, Iowa Supreme Court