Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the order of the county court denying Appellant's handgun appeal, holding that the lower courts did not err in denying the appeal.The Sarpy County sheriff's office denied Appellant's application for a handgun certificate pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2404 and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), determining that Appellant's previous conviction for third degree assault met the criteria for domestic violence under federal law. Appellant appealed, arguing that he had never been convicted of a crime of domestic violence. The county court denied the appeal, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion. View "Scalise v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioner's petition for declaratory judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act and Nebraska's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, holding that good time earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1.107(2)(b) has no applicability to an inmate's parole eligibility date (PED).Petitioner, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) system, brought a petition for declaratory judgment arguing that good time credit earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1,107(2)(b) applies to an inmate's PED. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that good time credit earned pursuant to section 83-107(2)(b) is applicable only to reduce an inmate's maximum sentence. View "Heist v. Neb. Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the exception filed by the State in this exception proceeding after the district court granted Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that there was no merit to the State's arguments.Shortly before the scheduled date for his trial Defendant moved for absolute discharge on the grounds that she had not been brought to trial before the running of the six-month speedy trial period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207. The district court granted absolute discharge. The State then filed this exception proceeding, arguing that by agreeing to an initial trial date that was outside the sixth-month speedy trial period, Defendant consented to the excludable period of delay within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(b) or, alternatively, that the Defendant invited the error in scheduling. The Supreme Court overruled the exception, holding that the trial court correctly found that the State failed to bring Defendant to trial before the running of the statutory speedy trial period. View "State v. Space" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions relating to allegations of sexual assault of a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her assignments of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of eleven counts in four separate cases relating to allegations of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of sixty-four to 102 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the procedure followed by the district court with respect to instruction No. 4; (2) the district court did not err in allowing the forensic interview program manager at a child advocacy center to testify as an expert on the issue of grooming; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's sentences. View "State v. Greer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court properly found that Defendant's claims were either procedurally barred, insufficiently alleged, or affirmatively refuted by the record.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, first degree assault, and possession fo a firearm by a prohibited person. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and trial error. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to allege facts that would affirmatively show that he was entitled to no relief. View "State v. Lessley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for discharge for an alleged violation of Nebraska's speedy trial statutes, holding that there was no error in the overruling of Appellant's motion for discharge.Defendant was charged with second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Prior to a status hearing, Defendant filed a motion for discharge. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court overruled the motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in excluding from the speedy trial calculation delay related to his competency proceedings in a separate case and to his motion to continue an arraignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling the motion. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for manslaughter, with reckless driving as the predicate unlawful act, holding that Defendant's claims on appeal were without merit.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed testimony from a sheriff's deputy who was dispatched to the scene of the accident that driving on the wrong side of the road could be a sign of reckless driving; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for manslaughter; and (3) the district court did not err when it did not give a lesser-included offense instruction on careless driving as a lesser-included offense because that instruction was not requested. View "State v. Cerros" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to six felony charges, holding that there was no error.After the district court accepted Defendant's no contest pleas, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, claiming that he wanted to withdraw his pleas so that he could obtain a second opinion as to his sanity at the time of the charged offenses. The district court denied the motion to withdraw. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas; and (2) the record was insufficient to review Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of first degree sexual assault and sentence of four to ten years' imprisonment, holding that each of Defendant's assignments of error was without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in certain evidentiary rulings, by denying his motion to continue, and in imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its challenged evidentiary rulings; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion to continue; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of four to ten years' imprisonment on Defendant. View "State v. Abligo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, and driving during revocation, second offense, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assigned errors.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of non-aggravated DUI and of driving during revocation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The trial court further revoked Defendant's operator's license for a period of fifteen years following his release from incarceration. On appeal, Defendant alleged five instances of error, including the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's warrantless blood test was reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment; (2) there was no error in the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings; (3) the evidence supported the convictions; and (4) Defendant's challenges to the sentences imposed were unavailing. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law