Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, (2) the sentence was excessive, and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, (2) the sentence was not excessive, and (3) Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit because Defendant made insufficient allegations of fact that would support findings of prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence supported Defendant’s conviction and sentence; and (2) Defendant failed to make sufficiently specific allegations of deficient conduct regarding one of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, but the merits of Defendant’s remaining two ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims could not be reviewed upon the trial record, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in determining that these claims were alleged with insufficient specificity and thus lacked merit. View "State v. Abdullah" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to police during the murder investigation. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, and, at a bench trial, the State received evidence of the statements challenged in Defendant’s motion to suppress. The district court found Defendant guilty of both charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s confession during a pre-Miranda interrogation, but this evidence was cumulative to other admissible evidence, and its admission was harmless error; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Juranek" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowing or intentional child abuse resulting in death and was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging errors on the part of the trial court and errors relating to the ineffectiveness of trial counsel and appellate counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in several respects and that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding, as to three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they were without merit because Defendant failed to allege how he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the court of appeals applied the wrong reasoning in finding that three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims lacked merit for failure to allege prejudice, as resolution of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims requires specific allegations of the deficient conduct, but allegations of prejudice are not necessary on direct appeal; and (2) in these three instances, the record was not sufficient to review Defendant’s claim.View "State v. Filholm" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant, who was not a citizen of the United States, pled guilty to attempted sexual assault in the first degree. After Appellant was released from incarceration he filed a motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the judgment, alleging that not allowing him to withdraw his plea would result in “manifest injustice” because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The district court dismissed the motion, determining that Appellant could have brought his Padilla v. Kentucky claim in an earlier postconviction action. Appellant appealed, arguing that postconviction relief was never available to him because he could not have reasonably discovered the factual predicate of his claim while incarcerated, as he did not receive notice of the government’s decision to deport him until after his release. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the exercise of due diligence, Appellant should have discovered and brought his Padilla claim while incarcerated through a postconviction action; and (2) therefore, the district court properly dismissed Appellant’s claim for manifest injustice relief. View "State v. Mamer" on Justia Law

Appellant was a temporary employee at the University of Nebraska. After the University considering terminating Appellant’s employment, human resources completed a “threat assessment” in relation to the termination, which noted Appellant’s criminal record and history of becoming upset over discussion of work performance. When the University decided to terminate Appellant, an e-mail was circulated warning coworkers to alert campus police and lock their doors if they saw Appellant. Appellant filed this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the University Board of Regents and two of its managers, making a “stigma plus” claim that he was deprived of a liberty interest in his good name without due process of law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact that Appellant had not sufficiently suffered a constitutional violation; (2) the Board of Regents was shielded by sovereign immunity; and (3) the individual defendants were protected by qualified sovereign immunity because the alleged violation was not clearly established. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in its judgment.View "Potter v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted for driving under the influence, third offense. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the court of appeals committed reversible error when it affirmed the district court’s overruling of Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop that was based on an anonymous tip, as, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, there was not reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop; and (2) double jeopardy did not preclude a remand for a new trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while on duty as a deputy sheriff with the Douglas County sheriff’s office. While Appellant was receiving workers’ compensation benefits, a County employee had Appellant placed under surveillance. The Sheriff’s Office later terminated Plaintiff’s employment on the basis that Appellant had been “untruthful and deceptive” regarding the extent of his injuries. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Merit Commission affirmed the termination. The district court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition in the district court against the Douglas County Sheriff and the County (collectively, Appellees), alleging wrongful discharge in retaliation for having pursued a workers’ compensation claim and violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 based on three theories of liability. The district court granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined (1) Appellant’s first cause of action was barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-919(1); and (2) Appellees did not violate Appellant’s constitutional right to property, right to freedom of speech, or right to privacy. View "Brock v. Dunning" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder in connection with the shooting death of an acquaintance of Defendant. Defendant filed three motions to suppress evidence, all of which were denied. Defendant appealed the denials of his motions to suppress and argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it (1) denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the search of Defendant’s person; (2) failed to suppress evidence found at Defendant’s residence pursuant to a search warrant; (3) did not exclude expert testimony and exhibits concerning the ShotSpotter system, which detected the location of the shots fired the night of the murder; and (4) found the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, and first degree sexual assault on a child. Appellant was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied. Appellant then filed a second postconviction petition and sought relief under the common-law writ of error coram nobis. The district court denied postconviction relief, concluding that Appellant failed to raise any ground for relief not previously available to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s postconviction claims were procedurally barred because they were or could have been litigated on direct appeal or in his previous postconviction petition; and (2) Appellant failed to raise any basis warranting coram nobis relief. View "State v. Hessler" on Justia Law