Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of third degree sexual assault and admitting a minor to an obscene motion picture, show, or presentation. The district court affirmed the convictions. The court of appeals affirmed the sexual assault conviction but reversed the obscenity-related count. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for third degree sexual assault, and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in (1) affirming Defendant's conviction for third degree sexual assault; and (2) indicating that the ineffective assistance claim could not be reached on direct appeal on the existing record. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant's sentence on the firearm conviction was twice vacated and the cause remanded to correct the amount of credit for time served. Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant's motion did not allege facts constituting a denial of constitutional rights, and, as to certain allegations, the record refuted his claims. View "State v. Marks" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to sixty years to life imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel was deficient for not informing him about potentially exculpatory information disclosed at an in-chambers conference. The district court denied the motion, concluding that even if trial counsel's performance had been deficient, Defendant would still have accepted the plea agreement, and thus suffered no prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to disclose to Defendant exculpatory evidence relevant to his plea. View "State v. Keyser" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to the unauthorized use of a financial transaction device with a value between $500 and $1,500. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated when private counsel was prohibited from entering a limited appearance in Defendant's case, as Defendant was found to be indigent, Defendant was represented throughout the proceedings, and at no point throughout her proceedings did Defendant waive her right to her appointed public defender or report to the court that her appointed counsel was incompetent; (2) Defendant failed to establish that her trial counsel was deficient; and (3) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant on the same day it accepted her plea. View "State v. Dixon" on Justia Law

In 1985, Husband and Wife obtained a certificate of marriage form from the county court and participated in a wedding ceremony officiated by the county judge. In 2012, Husband brought this declaratory judgment action asking the district court to declare that no marriage ever existed because the section of the certificate of marriage form entitled "return of marriage ceremony certificate" was not completed and was never filed with the bureau of vital statistics. The district court found that a valid marriage existed between Husband and Wife and awarded attorney fees to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all statutory requirements were met in this case and that the marriage of Husband and Wife was valid. View "Vlach v. Vlach" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault. Throughout the criminal proceedings, Defendant was represented by a Nebraska attorney (Attorney) whose license had been suspended for nonpayment of dues. After learning Attorney's license was suspended but before Attorney was disbarred, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion after (1) declining to apply a per se rule, reasoning that Attorney was qualified when admitted and was suspended solely for nonpayment of dues; and (2) finding Defendant's specific claims were either affirmatively disproved by the record or constituted mere conclusions. The Supreme Court affirmed after declining to adopt a per se determination of ineffectiveness based on the fact that Attorney was suspended for nonpayment of dues at the time he represented Defendant, holding that Defendant failed to establish Attorney provided ineffective assistance based on specific aspects of Attorney's actual performance. View "State v. Vanderpool" on Justia Law

The State filed a complaint against Defendant charging him with third degree assault, to which Defendant pled no contest. Before sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that he had not received the complaint twenty-four hours before being asked to plead in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1802. The county court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 29-1802 applies to prosecutions by indictment or information and not complaints in county court; and (2) therefore, the county court's failure to comply with the statute was not a fair and just reason for Defendant to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Schanaman" on Justia Law

In 1996, the district court ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff child support. In 2006, the court issued a writ of execution against Defendant's unspecified property to satisfy the child support lien. However, Defendant had conveyed the property to his girlfriend by quitclaim deed. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a second praecipe for an execution on Defendant's property, seeking an execution sale of the property that Defendant had previously owned and alleging that when the quitclaim conveyances were made, the property was subject to her lien. The court ordered the sheriff to execute on the property, and the sheriff sold the property to Plaintiff. John McWilliams challenged the sale, alleging that when the court issued the writ of execution, he was the record owner, and therefore, the court could not order the sheriff to conduct the execution sale because the property was not titled in Defendant's name. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order confirming the sale, holding that the court lacked authority to order the sheriff to levy the writ on property in which Defendant, the judgment debtor, no longer had an interest, absent any finding that Defendant's transfer of the property was fraudulent. Remanded. View "Fox v . Whitbeck" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The county court entered judgment against Defendants. On appeal, Defendants asked the district court to take judicial notice of the county court transcript and the bill of exceptions of the county court proceedings. The district court affirmed after a hearing, holding that the record did not support Defendants' appeal, as the bill of exceptions was not complete at the hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the incomplete record was the fault of the county court and because the district court was aware of the incomplete record prior to reaching its decision, the district court erred in failing to order the county court to file a complete bill of exceptions. Remanded. View "Centurion Stone of Neb. v. Whelan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief. The motion was filed stamped on August 28, 2012. In 2011, the legislature amended the Nebraska Postconviction Act by requiring a one-year time limit for fling a motion for postconviction relief. The one-year period runs from the appropriate triggering event or August 27, 2011, whichever is later. Here the district court concluded that Defendant had until one year from August 27, 2011 to file his motion, and therefore, Defendant's postconviction action was barred by the limitation period. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, as the court's finding that Defendant filed his motion outside the one-year period was not clearly erroneous. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law