Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence but vacated the portion of the court's postconviction order prematurely addressing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims were either insufficiently raised or affirmatively refuted by the record.In pro se motions, Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and asked for appointment of counsel. After appointing counsel for Defendant the court granted as relief a new direct appeal. Defendant's notice of appeal, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and poverty affidavit were filed within thirty days after the final order granting the new direct appeal. The property affidavit, however, had been executed by Defendant more than forty-five days before the filing of the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated the postconviction order addressing Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims unrelated to the request for relief of a new direct appeal, holding that, with one exception, Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the new direct appeal were either insufficiently raised or affirmatively refuted by the record. View "State v. Blake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of disturbing the peace and of assault or menacing threats, both in violation of city ordinances in Lincoln, Nebraska, holding that there was no error in Defendant's convictions or sentences.Defendant's conviction arose from his acts of shouting in a loud, menacing, and persistent manner from his apartment's balcony at persons across the street. Defendant appealed his convictions and their resulting ten-day jail sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if Defendant's speech was constitutionally protected, the State may regulate it through reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech; and (2) Defendant's conviction for assault or menacing threats was supported by sufficient evidence. View "State v. Grant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part as modified and reversed in part the judgment of the district court finding that the City of Bellevue, Nebraska unconstitutionally impaired its contractual obligations and ordering the City to insert certain language into the document governing the retirement plan, holding that the district court erred in part.After the City increased the amount it regularly deducted from its police officers' paychecks to fund their retirement plan, a group of officers and their union (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit, alleging that the City had violated the Contracts Clauses and Takings Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The district court granted the motion in part, finding that the City unconstitutionally impaired its contractual obligations and ordering the City to insert certain language into the retirement plan. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court's order should be modified to remove the language in question; and (2) the district court made a legal error by finding that Plaintiffs were not the prevailing parties. View "Abbott v. City of Bellevue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, attempted intentional manslaughter, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. In his motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued, in part, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alibi defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's appeal was without merit. View "State v. Newman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree sexual assault of a child, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims of trial error, and Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred by, inter alia, refusing to appoint him a DNA expert and by sustaining the prosecution's objection to further use of a forensic video to refresh the victim's recollection; and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in numerous ways. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of trial error were without merit; and (2) all of Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit with the exception that this Court did not reach the merits of one of Defendant's ineffective assistance arguments. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, in which Defendant alleged violations of his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal from the denial of his motion for discharge, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it concluded that continuances ordered by the court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were for good cause and therefore should be excluded from the calculation of the time for bringing him to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither Defendant's statutory nor his federal or state constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, sitting as an appellate court, affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for absolute discharge based on her statutory right to a speedy trial, holding that the county court did not clearly err in finding good cause for the judicial delays.Defendant was charged with two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence assault in the third degree. Defendant requested a jury trial. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, claiming violations of her statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly affirmed the county court's order denying Defendant's motion for absolute discharge under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207 because the State failed to meet its burden to show that good cause existed sufficient to toll Defendant's speedy trial rights. View "State v. Chase" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice or for absolute discharge based on late disclosures of discovery information resulting in delays Defendant argued implicated his speedy trial rights and denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the fruits of the search of his residence, two cell phones taken from his person incident to his unlawful arrest, information obtained from a search of the contents of his two cell phones, cell records and cell site location information from the cell phone service providers. Defendant also challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss and motion for complete discharge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Short" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant failed to prove that he suffered prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and related crimes. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by his counsel's failure to call impeachment witnesses. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that warranted an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Britt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant's statutory speedy trial rights were not violated.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof during the hearing on his motion for absolute discharge and erred in finding good cause under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(f) to exclude a period of time immediately following the appointment of replacement defense counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error regarding either the order of proof or the burden of proof; and (2) there was no statutory speedy trial violation, and therefore, the district court properly overruled Appellant's motion. View "State v. Coomes" on Justia Law