Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant's assignment of error was both reviewable and meritorious.On appeal from the denial of his motion for absolute discharge, Appellant argued that he was not tried within the statutory six-month period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207 and that the State failed to prove that the delay was the result of any properly excluded period. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the cause with directions to grant Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant was not tried within six months of the complaint being filed and that the State failed to meet its burden of proving excludable time. View "State v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) applied the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for appointment of successor trial counsel and by denying counsel's motion to withdraw; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's request to obtain his own physical copies of discovery material; (3) did not abuse its discretion in discharging an African-American juror; (4) did not err by allowing the State to present a portion of its case in chief in Defendant's absence; and (5) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Figures" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for second degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion in liming to exclude the testimony of a firearm and toolmark examiner and when it subsequently overruled Defendant's renewed objection at trial; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when imposing sentences. View "State v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all of Defendant's convictions with the exception of the misdemeanor violation of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202, which the court reversed and remanded with directions to vacate, holding that the insufficient to support the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court for York County was the proper venue in which to bring charges against Defendant; (2) the district court did not err by commencing the trial without appointing him counsel or standby counsel; (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to be present when it commenced trial with Defendant's representing himself pro se and when it continued with the trial after Defendant failed to reappear following noon recess; and (4) while the evidence was sufficient to support the majority of Defendant's convictions, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant was carrying a weapon concealed on or about his person. View "State v. Warlick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's claims were all either procedurally barred, based upon mere conclusions of fact and law, or refuted by the trial record.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued (1) law enforcement extracted information from his cell phone before the crime occurred and unlawfully searched the phone before obtaining a warrant, (2) the State committed a Brady violation, (3) there were various acts of prosecutorial misconduct committed during trial, and (4) both trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Stelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of one count of theft by unlawful taking, one count of attempted theft by unlawful taking, and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult. In his postconviction motion, Defendant alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal when he was directed to do so. The district court denied the motion following a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant was not deficient in failing to file a direct appeal. View "State v. Combs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentences imposed upon Defendant for his plea-based convictions for one Class IIA felony and three Class IV felonies, holding that Defendant's three sentences for Class IV felonies were plain error.Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of eight to sixteen years' imprisonment for the Class IIA felony and two years' imprisonment for each Class IV felony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the terms of his total sentence were excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence for Defendant's Class IIA felony but vacated the sentences imposed for his Class IV felonies and remanded the cause for resentencing, holding (1) Defendant's sentences were not excessive; but (2) the district court erred in rendering determinate sentences for each of Defendant's Class IV felonies. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2102(2).Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for new trial. The district court dismissed the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred when it failed to treat his motion as a postconviction motion and to consider his claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err when it considered Defendant's motion as a motion for new trial rather than considering it as a motion for postconviction relief; and (2) properly dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err in finding that trial counsel was effective.In his motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a direct appeal at Defendant's direction. The district court denied the motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Defendant did not direct trial counsel to file a direct appeal, and therefore, trial counsel was not deficient in allegedly not filing the appeal. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of a controlled substance and two counts of carrying a concealed weapon, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims on appeal.On appeal, Defendant contended that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because there was no Fourth Amendment violation the court properly overruled Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict; and (3) trial counsel did not perform deficiently. View "State v. Lowman" on Justia Law