So, we’ll jump right in with the first new Iowa Supreme Court case of the day:
Capital Promotions, LLC v. Don King Productinos, Inc.- Capital sued Don King for intentional interference with a contractual relationship. Capital repped a fighter named Tye Fields who was a Des Moines native, lived in Missouri for some time and lived in Nevada when the alleged interference actually occurred. Capital is an Iowa LLC. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the District Court on Don King’s motion for summary judgment: Don King did not have sufficient contacts with the State of Iowa for the State to have personal jurisdiction over the company (Did someone say Fahrvergnügen?).
What about Don King’s hair? I imagine every time he drives through or flies over the Midwest some portion of his hair has contact with Iowa or its air space. Not enough? Oh. OK. But don’t blame me when it grows to such proportions that it blocks out the sun.
State v. Cowles- Sick, sick, sick, sick person. There are some of those out there. This is the State’s appeal on further review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Cowles was charged with a multitude of separate counts concerning the sexual abuse of his daughter. He pled guilty to, among other things, one count of sexual abuse in the second degree. The parties asked for immediate sentencing and agreed that he should receive the maximum sentence of 25 years for that offense, a class B felony. Cowles was so sentenced and informed and understood that he would be required to serve no less than 70% of that sentence.
Cowles later asked the Court to correct his sentence, saying it was illegal because there was no admission that he committed any of the acts after July1, 1996, when the statute requiring the minimum sentence of 70% went into effect. The Court agreed and changed the sentence. The Court of Appeals upheld the order of the District Court.
The State sought further review, which gets us here. According to the Supremes, Cowles acknowledgment that he committed an act of this nature prior to February 3, 1997, Cowles admitting he committed such an act between April 9, 1996 and February 2, 1997, and Cowles acknowledging he wanted to plead guilty after being told he would have to serve 70% of the sentence mean that he made an “implicit admission” that he committed an act after July 1, 1996.
Thought I can’t say I like the guy, I can’t help but think this is a little weird. Since when is an implicit admission valid in criminal court? What happened to reasonable doubt? Hmmm…
State v. Johnson- The Court here decides that a District Court’s limitation on the actions of standby counsel in a criminal action is tried with the Defendant representing himself are OK. The Court told standby counsel that he could only give advice if the defendant asked him for it.
I was a little upset by this opinion when I first started reading it. As I got to the end where the District Court is quoted concerning the matter, I felt much better about it. Since there is no constitutional right to standby counsel, there is nothing wrong with the Court limiting the role of standby counsel.
