Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Defendant pled no contest to third degree assault, the district court ordered Defendant to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider all the evidence in the record rather than just the factual basis for the plea in making its determination. On remand, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's crime involved sexual contact and ordered Defendant to register under SORA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's crime involved sexual contact and in ordering Defendant to register under SORA. View "State v. Norman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion requesting the district court to redact video recordings of his police interviews. The court excluded certain portions but allowed the remainder. When the remaining portions of Defendant's statements were admitted at trial, Defendant's counsel said that he had either no objection or no "further" objection to the admission of the video recordings. Defendant appealed, arguing that defense counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the response "no further objection" did not present a valid objection, Defendant did not preserve for appeal any evidentiary error that resulted from admitting the statements he previously moved to redact; and (2) the record was insufficient to adequately address whether counsel's failure to object denied Defendant the effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former police officer, was convicted after a jury trial of ten counts of possession of child pornography. Defendant was sentenced to sixty to 120 months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence found on his computer hard drives; (2) finding that the seizure of Appellant's hard drives was based upon probable cause and thus were legally seized; and (3) finding there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's convictions when the State did not present expert testimony establishing that the actors in the photographs and videos admitted against him were under the age of eighteen. View "State v. Reinpold" on Justia Law

Pursuant to Defendant's plea of no contest, the district court convicted Defendant of second degree murder. Upon sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of fifty years to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, contending that the court improperly limited or denied his right of allocution and that the court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the court's handling of Defendant's allocution; and (2) Defendant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him, as the court imposed a sentence within the statutory range and considered the pertinent factors. View "State v. Pereira" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft by deception in the amount of $500 to $1500 pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred in failing to inform him that he had a right to a presentence investigation and that, therefore, his waiver of his statutory right to a presentence investigation was not made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under a review of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant was informed of his right to a presentence investigation, was questioned as to whether he had been threatened or promised anything for his decision to waive this right, and was expressly asked if his waiver was made freely and voluntarily; and (2) therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. View "State v. Qualls" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of failure to affix a drug tax stamp. Appellant appealed, arguing that probable cause did not exist to stop his vehicle and that consent to search the vehicle was not properly given because of the illegal stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the conviction and sentences for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, as (i) the law enforcement officer properly stopped Appellant for violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,142, and (ii) because at the conclusion of the lawful stop, the officer asked if he could search Appellant's car and Appellant gave consent, there was no violation of Appellant's rights, and the evidence was properly admitted at trial; but (2) reversed Defendant's conviction and sentences for failing to affix a drug tax stamp, as the record contained no evidence regarding the absence of drug tax stamps. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for failure to affix a tax stamp. View "State v. Magallanes" on Justia Law

On October 7, the State filed an amended information in Butler County charging Appellant with one count of attempted first degree sexual assault and one count of second-offense violation of a protection order. Appellant was convicted of both offenses. On September 4, an information filed in Platte County charged Appellant with attempted first degree sexual assault. Appellant pled guilty. Appellant subsequently sought habeas corpus relief challenging the Butler County convictions, alleging (1) he was being illegally detained because the amended information was fatally defective, (2) his counsel in the Butler County case was ineffective, and (3) he was innocent of the charges. The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the legal positions asserted in the petition for writ of habeas corpus which he sought to file were frivolous. View "Peterson v. Houston" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to forty years to life in prison. The conviction was summarily affirmed. After his first petition for postconviction relief was denied, Defendant filed a pro se second verified motion for postconviction relief and request for an evidentiary hearing, asserting that he was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial, to due process of law, and to effective assistance of counsel. More specifically, Defendant argued his constitutional rights were violated because trial counsel advised Defendant not to alert the court concerning his mental health history and failed to inform the court that Defendant was on a mind-altering medication. The district court dismissed Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed the dismissal of his competency issues without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not allege that the competency-related issues he raised in his second motion for postconviction relief were not available previously or could not have been raised either on direct appeal or in his first postconviction proceeding, his claims were procedurally barred. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for second degree assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and unlawful membership recruitment into an organization or association in violation of Neb. Reb. Stat. 28-1351. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court did not err with respect to numerous evidentiary and other trial rulings and when it rejected Defendant's constitutional challenges to section 28-1351; but (2) vacated Defendant's sentences, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred in ordering the sentence for use of a deadly weapon to be served concurrently with the sentence for unlawful recruitment. Remanded for resentencing so that the sentence for use of a deadly weapon is ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences imposed. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming (1) he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct, (2) he was deprived of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) he was deprived of his right to present a complete defense. The trial court dismissed his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to all matters except for the denial of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue impeachment of the State's key witness with his alleged inconsistent statement. Remanded. View "State v. Poe" on Justia Law