Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery, holding that the Court was unable to read the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice, as required by Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 2-109(E).Defendant was denied a jury trial for his alleged violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery despite a separate ordinance imposing a ten-year ban upon possession of firearms by a person convicted of violating the battery ordinance. Following a bench trial, the county court convicted Defendant of violating the battery ordinance. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, implicitly challenging the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705, which prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. Defendant, however, failed to comply with the procedural rule governing constitutional challenges to statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed after strictly applying Rule 2-109(E), holding that the Court was unable to reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide the notice required by Rule 2-109(E). View "State v. Denton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for child abuse, holding that the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-1848 allows a victim both to fill out a victim impact statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also to write and read a separate letter to be offered at the defendant's sentencing hearing.Defendant pled no contest to one count of misdemeanor child abuse. After a hearing, Defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the victim to submit a statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also allowing her to read a separate letter that was offered into evidence for purposes of resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) Defendant's sentence was not excessive. View "State v. Hurd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the State's exceptions to the district court's dismissal of charges filed against Deborah Archer and Cory Russell, holding that there was no error in the district court's dismissal of the informations against Archer and Russell.Archer and Russell were charged with crimes involving their sale of products continuing cannabidiol, also known as CBD. After a hearing during which evidence was presented that the pharmacological effects of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and CBD were not similar, the district court dismissed without prejudice the charges for failure of sufficient probable cause. The State filed an application taking exception to the district court's dismissals. The Supreme Court overruled the exceptions, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the charges. View "State v. Archer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the district court granting Defendant a new trial and absolute discharge, holding that the orders were void because the district court did not comply with the Supreme Court's mandate in an earlier appeal.In 2000, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Several unsuccessful motions and appeals followed, in which Defendant collaterally attacked his convictions and sentences. In 2017, the Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings in an appeal involving collateral attacks. On remand, the district court granted Defendant's motion for new trial and, later, his motion for absolute discharge on speedy trial grounds. The Supreme Court vacated those orders, holding that the district court did not comply with this Court's mandate in an earlier appeal. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law