Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the murder charges and remanded with instructions to sentence Appellant to life imprisonment on the murder charges. Appellant filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other claims, ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying relief, without an evidentiary hearing, on Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call certain witnesses; and (2) Appellant remaining assignments of error either lacked merit or were procedurally barred. View "State v. Thorpe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony criminal mischief and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals vacated Defendant’s sentence for criminal mischief as well as Defendant’s conviction and sentence for use of a weapon to commit a felony and remanded for a new trial on the issue of the amount of pecuniary loss caused by Defendant’s criminal mischief. On remand, the district court found Defendant guilty of both felony criminal mischief and use of a weapon to commit a felony, finding that the pecuniary loss caused by the criminal mischief was equal to or greater than $1,500. The court imposed the same sentences that had been pronounced after the jury trial, including an order to pay restitution in the amount of $7,500. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the conviction for use of a weapon to commit a felony and remanded with directions to vacate the conviction, holding there was insufficient evidence presented at the new trial to support the conviction and that Double Jeopardy prevented prohibited a retrial on the charge; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered with respect to the felony criminal mischief conviction. View "State v. Esch" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to attempted possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and was sentenced to one to two years’ imprisonment. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging that his immigration counsel provided ineffective assistance by providing erroneous advice regarding the immigration consequences of his conviction. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals dismissed Defendant’s appeal as moot because Defendant had been released from prison and his parole had expired. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently decided Padilla v. Kentucky. Defendant moved to set aside his plea. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that Padilla was inapplicable to Defendant because his conviction was final prior to the Court’s decision in Padilla and that Defendant’s motion to set aside his plea was not timely for purposes of State v. Gonzales. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the constitutional right under which Defendant sought relief was inapplicable as a matter of law and the procedure set forth under Gonzales was unavailable. View "State v. Merheb" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree sexual assault. Defendant was brought to trial on the charge two separate times. Each time, the trial ended in mistrial. After the first mistrial, Defendant filed a plea in bar to his retrial, alleging that double jeopardy barred retrial. The district court overruled the plea in bar, and the Supreme Court affirmed. After the second mistrial, Defendant filed a plea in bar arguing that double jeopardy barred retrial. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a third trial of Defendant, and the district court did not err in overruling his plea in bar. View "State v. Muhannad" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, one count of attempted first degree murder, and three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Defendant then moved for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Defendant’s allegations consisted solely of conclusory statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel failed to establish any prejudice resulting from the alleged deficiencies of his counsel; and (2) Defendant’s claim of instructional error was not presented as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel before the district court and was therefore not preserved for review. View "State v. Sellers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual abuse of an inmate or parolee for having sex with a parolee while he was employed as an officer by the Department of Correctional Services. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not show that he had control over the parolee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) Defendant’s conviction under the relevant statutes did not violate his rights to intimate association and equal protection; and (3) the district court adequately instructed the jury. View "State v. Loyuk" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of use of a firearm to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed this action for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that Defendant did not allege sufficient facts in his motion, if true, would entitle him to postconviction relief, and therefore, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims. View "State v. Armendariz" on Justia Law

L.B. 1161, which was passed in 2012, allows major oil pipeline carriers to bypass the regulatory procedures of the Public Service Commission, instead allowing them to obtain approval from the Governor to exercise the power of eminent domain for building a pipeline in Nebraska. Appellees, a group of landowners, filed a complaint alleging that the bill violated the state Constitution’s equal protection, due process, and separation of powers provisions, as well as the Constitution’s prohibition of special legislation. The district court determined that L.B. 1161 was unconstitutional. Four members of the Supreme Court - a majority of its seven members - held that Appellees had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the bill and that the legislation was unconstitutional. However, because five judges of the Court did not vote on the constitutionality of the bill, the Court held that L.B. must stand by default. View "Thompson v. Heineman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred by allowing a witness, Defendant’s wife, to testify in the presence of the jury, knowing she would invoke her Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to treat the witness as a hostile witness and continue to ask leading questions even after she refused to testify; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to either admonish or instruct the jury not to draw an inference from the witness’s invocation of her right against self-incrimination; and (4) all of the errors, taken together, amounted to reversible error. View "State v. Draper" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court overruled Appellant’s motion in an order issued in 2012. Appellant then filed an amended pro se motion for postconviction relief, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court overruled the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider any assignments of error related to the claims that were denied in the 2012 order; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s amended motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Banks" on Justia Law