Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.Defendant, a criminal defense attorney, was arrested following his purchase of cocaine from his client during the course of a controlled delivery set up by the Western Nebraska Intelligence and Narcotics Group. The district court found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and overruled his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (2) did not err in denying a new trial based on evidence that was insufficient to warrant a new trial. View "State v. Worthman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Defendant's motion seeking to vacate and correct his sentence for driving under the influence, which Defendant received almost nine years earlier, holding that the county court did not err.In 2008, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. In 2010, Defendant's probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to a jail term, a fine, and a fifteen-year license revocation. No appeal was taken. Nine years later, Defendant filed a motion to reopen the case and vacate the previous sentencing order, asserting that the sentencing order improperly failed to include an order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.01. The county court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that nine years after the judgment and conviction became final the county court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant's motion to vacate and correct his sentence. View "State v. McAleese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance and finding him to be a habitual criminal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant was arrested after a police officer discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's vehicle and his person. After his conviction, Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and finding him to be a habitual criminal, and asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion and that Defendant's ineffective assistance claims were either without merit or not alleged with sufficient particularity. View "State v. Drake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for terroristic threats, assault in the third degree, and intimidation by phone call, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.Defendant's convictions stemmed from events that occurred on September 6, 2019 pertaining to three children Defendant shared with his ex-wife. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in overruling the motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for absolute discharge wherein Appellant alleged violations of his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial, holding Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was charged with domestic violence assault in the third degree and strangulation. After several continuances, Appellant filed a motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the district court's order was sufficiently specific regarding the causes of the delay and the period of delay; (2) the district court's finding that Appellant's case should not be dismissed on statutory speedy trial grounds was not clearly erroneous; and (3) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Moody’s claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge on constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Moody" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court granting Defendant's motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds, holding that the district court's order granting the motion was clearly erroneous.Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and other offenses and went to trial. A mistrial was granted because the prosecutor solicited improper testimony. Defendant subsequently filed a plea in bar, arguing that the State should not be able to retry the case. The district court denied the plea in bar, and the court of appeals affirmed. One week after a new trial was scheduled Defendant filed a motion for absolute discharge. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that time remained on Defendant's speedy trial clock, and therefore, Defendant's motion for absolute discharge was premature. View "State v. Bixby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Appellant, a middle school teacher, per no contest to four counts of possession of child pornography in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-813.01. The court sentenced Appellant concurrent terms of ten to twenty years' imprisonment on each count and ordered Appellant to register as a sex offender. Appellant later sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that that the district court did not err in (1) not holding an evidentiary hearing on Appellant's claims; and (2) denying Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon, not a firearm, to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's appeal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that he did not prove his insanity defense and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not insane at the time he killed the victim; and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating to the underlying facts of the murder. View "State v. John" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Defendant was not entitled to absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds.Defendant was charged with one count of first degree sexual assault. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, arguing that the State violated his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial and that the district court erred by finding that continuances of trial in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were for good cause. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds; and (2) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Defendant's claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge on constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Abernathy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony, holding that there was no basis for reversal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the information was insufficient to charge him with conspiracy, there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the State erroneously impeached its own witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State satisfied the overt act requirement by alleging the substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy as the overt act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) even assuming the prosecution improperly impeached its witness, any error was harmless. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law