Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, holding that the district court did not err by receiving evidence of a prior conviction offered by the State in support of sentence enhancement.Defendant pleaded guilty to DUI and driving under suspension. At a sentence enhancement proceeding, the State sought to introduce evidence of Defendant's three prior DUI convictions. Defendant objected to the admission of records of his 2010 DUI conviction, arguing that those records did not affirmatively show that he had counsel or had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel before entering his guilty plea in that case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by receiving records of Defendant's 2010 DUI conviction and finding that his conviction in this case was his fourth offense. View "State v. Teppert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for two counts of third degree sexual assault of a child, one count of attempted incest, and one count of attempted first degree sexual assault, holding that the district court did not commit plain error when it allowed certain testimony and that Defendant's sentences were not an abuse of discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the district court committed plain error when it allowed an investigator to testify regarding indicators of deception exhibited by Defendant in an interview, and (2) the district court imposed excessive sentences. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the testimony regarding indicators of deception was not plain error; and (2) Defendant's sentences of imprisonment, rather than probation, were not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Senteney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's drug possession conviction, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for not having license plates. During the traffic stop, the officer obtained the driver's consent to search the vehicle. The officers found methamphetamine in a purse located on the front passenger floorboard. The purse belonged to Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the search violated her Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures because she did not consent to the search of her purse. The district court overruled the motion. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search was constitutional because the officer reasonably believed that the driver could have owned the purse and the officer found the contraband in plain view upon opening the wallet that contained Defendant's identification. View "State v. Andera" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest and obstructing a police officer, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the convictions and sentences.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in affirming her allegedly excessive sentence and in directing that her appearance bond be applied to fines and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the county court did not abuse its discretion when imposing sentence; (2) the county court did not err in ordering that Defendant's bond be applied to fines and costs; and (3) Defendant did not show that counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from an order of the district court declining to issue a writ of mandamus in order for Appellant to obtain an audio recording of his criminal trial, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction of this action for writ of mandamus, and therefore, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction of this appeal.Appellant, an inmate, filed a complaint for writ of mandamus seeking, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-712 et seq. (the public records statutes), to obtain an audio recording of his criminal trial. The district court district court denied and dismissed Appellant's action for writ of mandamus, concluding that the public records statutes were inapplicable to Appellant's request and that access to the record of court proceedings was governed by court rules rather than the public records statutes. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that because Appellant did not file motion and affidavit or a verified petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction of this proceeding for mandamus. View "State ex. rel. Malone v. Baldonado-Bellamy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement in an alleged violation of his Miranda rights, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's motion to suppress, the district court found that Defendant's pre-Miranda statements made to law enforcement were voluntary and not the result of an interrogation and that Defendant's post-Miranda statements were made voluntarily. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's pre-Miranda statements were made voluntarily and not in response to a custodial interrogation; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find that Defendant made his post-Miranda statements voluntarily. View "State v. Connelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an order denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, holding that precedent required that the Court vacate the portion of the order related to ineffective assistance for failure to investigate.Defendant pled guilty to three counts of first degree murder and other crimes. No direct appeal was filed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and that he would not have entered into the plea agreement if his attorney had properly investigated his case. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant's ineffective assistance claim concerning his direct appeal; and (2) the district court failed to follow the directive in State v. Determan, 873 N.W.2d 390 (Nev. 2016), when disposing of Defendant's second postconviction claim. View "State v. Dalton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge under Nebraska's speedy trial statutes, holding that Defendant was entitled to absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes.The State filed theft charges against Defendant on March 29, 2017. When Defendant did not appear for a scheduled arraignment the county court issued a warrant for his arrest. On April 24, 2019, Defendant was arrested. Defendant moved for absolute discharge on the grounds that he had been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. The county court overruled the motion, stating that the period of time during which the arrest warrant was pending was excluded under the speedy trial statutes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in finding that the pendency of the warrant resulted in excluded time, and the State produced insufficient evidence at the speedy trial hearing that could support any other basis for excluded time; and (2) Defendant was entitled to absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes. View "State v. Chapman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court imposing a life sentence for a second degree murder conviction to run consecutively with a sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not impose an excessive sentence.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The district court imposed a life sentence for the second degree murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for the use of a deadly weapon conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentence imposed by the district court was not excessive. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences in two cases in which he entered into no contest pleas to felony charges, holding that there was no error.In two separate cases, Defendant was charged with multiple felonies. Defendant entered pleas of no contest in both cases. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and in imposing excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based not understand the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act consequences; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of Defendant's sentences. View "State v. Canady" on Justia Law