Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Rosario Betancourt-Garcia was convicted of kidnapping, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping after his nephew was found bound and gagged in Madison, Nebraska. Betancourt was arrested in Texas and testified that he was working in Houston at the time of the offenses. However, his nephew and another man involved in the kidnapping identified him as a perpetrator. Betancourt was sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping, 10 to 30 years for use of a firearm, and 30 to 50 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, his convictions were affirmed, but his sentence for conspiracy was vacated and remanded for resentencing.The district court for Madison County granted Betancourt an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but denied others. Betancourt appealed the denial of an evidentiary hearing on his remaining claims. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order except for the claim regarding his sentence for conspiracy, which was remanded for a hearing. On remand, the district court corrected Betancourt’s sentences but denied his claims related to his alibi and misidentification defenses, finding that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to present certain witnesses.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the district court’s findings. The court found that trial counsel’s decision not to subpoena, depose, or obtain sworn statements from witnesses who could not place Betancourt in Texas on the date of the offenses was reasonable. The court also noted that the witnesses were uncooperative and that their testimony could have corroborated the prosecution’s case. As such, the court concluded that Betancourt was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue on direct appeal. The court also found that Betancourt’s other claims were either addressed or precluded under the law-of-the-case doctrine. The order of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Betancourt-Garcia" on Justia Law

Daniel Dejaynes-Beaman, aged 18, was charged with the murder of Jolene Harshbarger, who was found dead with 12 stab wounds and evidence of sexual assault. Dejaynes-Beaman confessed to the crime during a police interview. Initially charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon, he later entered a plea agreement, pleading no contest to second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm.The District Court for Douglas County accepted his plea and sentenced him to 65 years to life for second-degree murder and 40 to 50 years for the weapon charge, to be served consecutively. Dejaynes-Beaman appealed, arguing that his sentences were unconstitutional and an abuse of discretion. He cited his age and difficult upbringing, including exposure to drug abuse and physical violence, as mitigating factors.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It noted that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama, which prohibits mandatory life without parole for those under 18, did not apply to Dejaynes-Beaman, who was 18 at the time of the crime. The court also found that the district court had considered all relevant factors, including Dejaynes-Beaman’s age, background, and psychological evaluation, before sentencing.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the sentences were neither unconstitutional nor an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the sentences were within statutory limits and appropriately considered the nature of the offense and the mitigating factors presented. View "State v. Dejaynes-Beaman" on Justia Law

In 2021, Michael D. Davis pleaded guilty to three counts of child abuse and one count of first-degree arson. For the arson conviction, the court imposed a sentence of 20 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Davis filed a direct appeal, but the Nebraska Court of Appeals found no plain error with respect to the sentences imposed. Davis then filed a motion for postconviction relief, asserting that the sentence for arson was void because the minimum term was the same as the maximum term, violating Nebraska law.The district court agreed with Davis, ruling that the arson sentence did not comply with the statutory requirement that the minimum term be less than the maximum term, and was therefore void. The court concluded that it was necessary to resentence Davis for the arson conviction. In October 2023, the court imposed a new sentence of 19 years 11 months to 20 years’ imprisonment for the arson conviction. Davis appealed this new sentence.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court erred in granting Davis' motion for postconviction relief and resentencing him. The Supreme Court held that when a sentencing court imposes an indeterminate sentence but that sentence fails to pronounce a valid minimum term, the minimum term shall be the minimum imposed by law. In this case, the law supplied a valid minimum term of 1 year’s imprisonment, so Davis’ initial sentence was not void. Therefore, the district court had no authority to modify it. The Supreme Court vacated the new sentence and dismissed the appeal. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jason Assad, was arrested and his property was seized by law enforcement. Among the seized items was a digital video recorder (DVR) that contained footage of an incident between Assad and his wife. This footage was used as evidence in his trial, where he was convicted of first degree false imprisonment, terroristic threats, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. After his conviction and sentencing, Assad sought the return of his seized property, including the DVR.The District Court for Cheyenne County granted Assad's request for the return of most items, but denied the return of the DVR. The court reasoned that the state had an interest in preserving the DVR as evidence for potential future appeals or post-conviction relief efforts by Assad. The court ordered that a complete copy of the contents of the DVR be made and provided to Assad, but the original DVR would remain with the state.Assad appealed this decision to the Nebraska Supreme Court, arguing that the district court erred in denying his request to have the DVR returned to him. The Supreme Court reviewed the case for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted that while future actions might be unlikely, it was not impossible that Assad might bring a postconviction action that is not time barred. The court also noted that certain types of motions for new trial are not time barred in any way, and thus, the potential for such a motion—and in turn, a possible new trial—exists as well. Therefore, the state's interest in retaining the DVR and its original contents was justified. View "State v. Assad" on Justia Law

The case involves Nolan M. King, who was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. The incident occurred in a bar in Omaha, Nebraska, where King attacked Rodney Pettit II, causing fatal head injuries. The altercation was triggered by Pettit's interaction with King's girlfriend, Wynter Knight.The case was initially heard in the District Court for Douglas County, where King was found guilty of manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. The court sentenced King to imprisonment for 19 years 364 days to 20 years on the manslaughter conviction and for 19 to 20 years on the use of a deadly weapon conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively.The case was then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court. King argued that the district court erred by allowing the testimony of witnesses the State endorsed 2 weeks prior to trial, by prohibiting King from questioning the State’s witnesses about the victim’s toxicology report, and by imposing improper and excessive sentences. King also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found no merit in King's arguments, stating that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the endorsement of additional witnesses, and that the evidence was sufficient to support King's conviction for use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. The court also found that King's sentences were not inconsistent with recent amendments to Nebraska law and were not excessive. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The defendant, Allen Evans, was charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a protected individual. The charges were brought after a resident of the Beatrice State Development Center reported that Evans had sexually assaulted her while he was employed with the Department of Health and Human Services. Evans pleaded no contest to both counts. The district court sentenced him to 18 to 20 years’ imprisonment for each conviction, resulting in an aggregate term of imprisonment of 36 to 40 years. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.Evans appealed his sentences, arguing that they were invalid because, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,110 (Supp. 2023), he may be eligible for parole before serving his minimum term of 36 years. He contended that under the parole eligibility criteria of a recent amendment to § 83-1,110(3)(c)(iii), the maximum sentence for an aggregate sentence of 40 years cannot exceed 32 years, because 80 percent of a maximum term of 40 years is 32 years.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that § 83-1,110 concerns parole eligibility calculations and not the permissible sentencing range of the underlying sentence imposed by the trial court. The court's aggregate sentence of 36 to 40 years was valid, and the court did not need to address the correctness of the court's truth-in-sentencing advisement in light of the amendments to § 83-1,110(3)(c)(iii). The court concluded that a truth-in-sentencing advisement containing a miscalculation as to the expected parole eligibility or mandatory release date does not affect the validity of either the sentence or the plea. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The case involves Kevin S. German, who was convicted of second-degree murder, kidnapping, and first-degree false imprisonment. The crimes were based on two separate incidents that occurred over a two-day period in November 2019. German and his girlfriend, Keonna Carter, abducted and assaulted E.A. In the second incident, they abducted, assaulted, and killed Annika Swanson.The District Court for Chase County, Nebraska, heard the case. The court admitted photographic evidence of Swanson's child, gave instructions on aiding and abetting a crime, and refused to give German's tendered instructions. The court also imposed a sentence of life imprisonment for kidnapping.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion in the receipt of photographic evidence and no reversible error related to the jury instructions or kidnapping sentence. With regard to German's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they either lacked merit, could not be resolved on the existing record, or were not sufficiently alleged. View "State v. German" on Justia Law

The case involves a juvenile, Jeovani H., who was placed on probation and ordered to pay restitution as a term and condition of his probation. Jeovani was charged with an act that would constitute the felony of first-degree assault, which was later amended to a misdemeanor of attempted third-degree assault. The incident involved Jeovani shoving another youth, causing the youth to fall and fracture his arm. As part of a plea agreement, Jeovani admitted to the amended petition and agreed that the amount of restitution owed to his victim for medical expenses was $2,553.05. However, he disputed his ability to pay that amount.The Hall County Court, sitting as a juvenile court, accepted Jeovani’s admission to the amended petition and ordered a predisposition investigation. At the disposition and restitution hearing, Jeovani’s mother testified about the family's financial situation and work schedules, arguing that Jeovani did not have the ability to pay the restitution amount. The State called Jeovani and a juvenile probation officer as witnesses, who testified about Jeovani's ability to work and earn money to pay the restitution.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court found that Jeovani had the ability to pay the restitution within the 12-month period of his probationary term. The court also rejected Jeovani’s claim that he was not allowed an opportunity to present or cross-examine witnesses on the issue of restitution. The court concluded that the restitution order was consistent with Jeovani’s reformation and rehabilitation and was supported by the record. View "In re Interest of Jeovani H." on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, Michael C. Hoehn, who was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) after a motion to suppress evidence from his stop and arrest was denied by the county court. The arresting officer, Officer Matt Rockwell of the Minatare Police Department, had left his primary jurisdiction after receiving a report of a white pickup driving erratically. Rockwell observed the pickup straddling the centerline and trash coming from the driver’s-side window. After the pickup turned into oncoming traffic and down into the grass median, Rockwell stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as Hoehn. Rockwell observed Hoehn had slurred speech, bloodshot, watery eyes, and detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle. Rockwell administered a preliminary breath test and other field sobriety tests, which Hoehn failed, leading to his arrest for DUI.Hoehn appealed to the district court, arguing that Rockwell did not have jurisdictional authority to perform the traffic stop. The district court affirmed the conviction, interpreting Nebraska Revised Statute § 29-215(3)(c) to mean that when probable cause exists, officers have authority to perform stops and arrests outside of their primary jurisdiction that are solely related to enforcing laws that concern a person operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs.Hoehn then appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of § 29-215(3)(c) and found that Rockwell lacked jurisdictional authority to make the stop and arrest. However, the Court of Appeals held that under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule, Hoehn’s conviction, based on the evidence from his stop and arrest, did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution. Both Hoehn and the State petitioned for further review by the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, albeit on different grounds. The court held that a law enforcement officer’s jurisdictional power and authority to make a stop or arrest is irrelevant to the admissibility, under the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution, of the evidence obtained from the stop or arrest. Therefore, the county court did not err in denying Hoehn’s motion to suppress brought under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution. View "State v. Hoehn" on Justia Law

The case involves Joseph C. Boeggeman, who was convicted in Nebraska for two counts of attempted first degree sexual assault and one count of attempted third degree sexual assault. During the Nebraska criminal proceedings, Boeggeman was serving an unrelated sentence in Massachusetts. After his sentencing hearing in Nebraska in February 2017, and before the time for filing an appeal had expired, Boeggeman was returned to Massachusetts, where he remained until January 2020.Boeggeman filed a motion for postconviction relief in December 2020, arguing that there was a discrepancy between the trial court's pronounced sentence and its written sentencing order regarding whether his Nebraska sentences were to run concurrently with or consecutively to his Massachusetts sentence. The district court denied his motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that his motion was untimely and that equitable tolling did not apply to the 1-year limitation of § 29-3001(4).The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the 1-year limitation period for filing a postconviction motion under § 29-3001(4) is not subject to equitable tolling. The court also noted that postconviction relief is only available where a constitutional violation renders the judgment void or voidable, and Boeggeman's supplemental allegations, which all occurred after his judgment was entered, had no bearing on the underlying judgment. View "State v. Boeggeman" on Justia Law