In the Interest of T.D., T.D., Minor Child

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0228
Filed December 21, 2016
IN THE INTEREST OF T.D.,
T.D., Minor child,
Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County, Russell G. Keast
(adjudicatory hearing), District Associate Judge, and Susan F. Flaherty
(dispositional hearing), Associate Juvenile Judge.
A child appeals the district court’s adjudication and disposition of
delinquency. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Peter W. Stiefel of Stiefel Law Firm, Victor, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
T.D. appeals following the district court’s dispositional order adjudicating
him delinquent and imposing formal probation.1 The district court determined he
committed sexual abuse in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code section
709.4(1)(a) (2015); assault with the intent to commit sexual abuse, in violation of
section 709.11(3); and simple assault, in violation of sections 708.1 and 708.2(6).
T.D. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conclusion he
committed the crimes in question and the court’s failure to grant him a consent
decree. We affirm the adjudication and disposition under Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1)(a), (b), and (d) but remand for the entry of a corrected dispositional
order.
The district court heard evidence T.D. committed certain acts upon three
separate victims. It then weighed the evidence and made credibility findings
before entering its lengthy and detailed ruling. We review delinquency
proceedings de novo, giving weight to the fact findings of the district court,
especially as to the credibility of the witnesses, but we are not bound by those
findings. In re A.K., 825 N.W.2d 46, 49 (Iowa 2013). Upon our de novo review,
we agree with the district court’s reasoning and conclusions.
We further find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its dispositional
decision declining T.D.’s request for a consent decree. See In re J.J.A., 580
N.W.2d 731, 737 (Iowa 1998) (“Our review of a juvenile court’s decision to enter
1
After the adjudicatory hearing, the district court found the State had proven T.D. had
committed the above referenced acts but withheld the entry of adjudication “pending
dispositional hearing.”
3
a consent decree is de novo, but only to the extent of examining all the evidence
to determine whether the juvenile court abused its discretion.”).
However, we vacate that portion of the dispositional order that incorrectly
cited Iowa Code section 708.2(2), assault causing bodily injury, because this
does not comport with the evidentiary findings of the court. The court found T.D.
had committed simple assault under Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2(6).
The State concedes this error. We therefore remand this matter for the entry of a
corrected dispositional order.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.