Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case brought against Defendant, the sheriff of Dawes County, for failing to receive a lawfully-committed prisoner into the county jail the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court convicting and sentencing Defendant for official misconduct in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-924, holding that there was no error.Defendant was charged with official misconduct for refusing to receive a prisoner, who was arrested without a warrant for felony offenses, and the county court found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain meaning of "lawful commitment" does not require a court order; (2) because a trier of fact found that Defendant's claim that the decision not to receive the prisoner based on the Jail Standards was not credible, Defendant was not entitled to relief on this allegation of error; (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that, absent a court order, sheriffs effectively have inherent authority to decline to receive arrestees; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal from his conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's agreement to waive his right to appeal applied to and was enforceable against his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.Prior to the sentencing hearing for his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and driving under the influence Defendant entered into a plea and sentencing agreement agreeing in a second case to plead no contest to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and to waive his right to appeal issues in both cases. The district court accepted the plea and sentence agreement and sentenced Defendant in both cases. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's ensuing appeal asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Defendant to testify in his own behalf and for eliciting incriminating testimony, holding that Defendant validly waived the right to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal. View "State v. Hamm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion of the court of appeals that the record refuted two of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to improper evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, there was no error in the court's ultimate judgment.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and sentenced to a term of twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to object to improper rule 404 evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, this Court's conclusion on the judgment was the same. View "State v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and failure to affix a tax stamp, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found when law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of a duffel bag and suitcase on a passenger trial; (2) did not err in failing to suppress certain testimony at trial; (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) did not abuse its wide discretion in sentencing Defendant to four to six years of imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. View "State v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err in determining that all of Defendant's claims were either insufficiently pled or affirmatively refuted by the record.Defendant, in inmate who was serving consecutive sentences for three convictions, including a life sentence for first degree murder, brought this motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel both at trial and on direct appeal. The district court denied the motion after determining that all of Defendant's claims were either insufficiently pled or affirmatively refuted by the record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of Defendant's claims warranted an evidentiary hearing and that the district court properly overruled Defendant's motions to add exhibits and to appoint counsel. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence on one count of assault in the second degree and one count of negligent child abuse, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were unavailing; (2) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the trial court erred by excepting from its sequestration order an eyewitness to the crimes who was the wife of one victim and mother of the other; (3) the trial court did not err by refusing to give a self-defense instruction; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the decision of the county court overruling Appellant's motion for absolute discharge pursuant to the speedy trial statutes, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.In his motion for absolute discharge Appellant argued that the time for trial ran and that the district court erred in concluding that two time periods were excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4). The county court overruled the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's overruling of Defendant's motion for absolute discharge. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's plea-based convictions, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the record as a whole demonstrated that his pleas were entered voluntarily and intelligently.Defendant was charged with eleven felonies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of no contest to three charges. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that his no contest pleas were not entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in finding that Defendant's no contest pleas were voluntarily and intelligently entered because the record did not affirmatively show that Defendant understood his rights or that he expressly waived them. View "State v. Mead" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this exception proceeding brought by the State following a trial in which Defendant was acquitted of use of a weapon to commit a felony and second-degree assault, holding that the issues presented were not appropriate for resolution in this exception proceeding.During the underlying trial, the State objected to the district court's instructing the jury on self-defense and defense of property, but the district court instructed the jury on both affirmative defenses. The jury subsequently acquitted Defendant on all counts. The State applied for leave to docket an exception proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because there was no dispute that Defendant was "placed legally in jeopardy" in court for purposes of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2316, this Court had no power to alter the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Valadez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the sentencing court calculating, in this case, jail credit under Neb. Rev. Stat. 47-503, holding that there was no error in the sentencing court's jail credit calculation.On October 22, 2021, Defendant was arrested and detained on the subject felony charges (the Hall County case) and was released from custody. On October 26, 2021, in a related case, Defendant was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Hall County jail. Defendant was continuously detained in the Hall County jail until his sentencing on May 24, 2022. After sentencing, Defendant moved for an order nunc pro tunc requesting additional jail credit. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court's determination that Defendant was entitled to ninety-four days of jail credit. View "State v. Castillo-Rodriguez" on Justia Law