Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentences for manslaughter and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and remanded this matter for resentencing for those offenses, holding that there was plain error in Defendant's sentencing.Defendant was convicted of manslaughter, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and pandering. On appeal, Defendant assigned nine errors. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentences in part, holding that the district court's failure to impose an indeterminate sentence when required by statute constituted plain error and that there was plain error in the district court's award of a credit for time served. Otherwise, the Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions and that Defendant failed to sufficiently allege ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Defendant's first assignment of error was without merit and that Defendant failed to allege ineffective assistance of counsel was sufficient particularity. View "State v. Sinkey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of delivery of a controlled substance, a class II felony, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-416, holding that the photographic identification of Defendant by a confidential informant as the person who sold drugs to the informant was reliable even though the confrontation procedure may have been suggestive.During the course of the criminal proceedings Defendant repeatedly sought to suppress the informant's identification of him, arguing that the identification violated his due process rights. During the jury trial, the informant's identification was admitted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the identification of Defendant was unduly suggestive but did not err in its conclusion regarding the reliability of the identification as analyzed with the five factors set forth in United States Supreme Court precedent. View "State v. Cosey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence, second offense, holding that the district court erred in affirming the conviction after finding that the county court erred in admitting breath test evidence.The district court determined that the county court erred in admitting breath test evidence but affirmed the conviction, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county court's consideration of the breath test evidence, which the district court later found inadmissible, was not harmless error. View "State v. McGinn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief.Appellant pled no contest to first degree assault and tampering with a witness and was sentenced to fifty to fifty years' imprisonment. Following the denial of his direct appeal, Petitioner initiated this postconviction proceeding, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at both the trial and appellate levels. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were either without merit or that Appellant failed to establish prejudice. View "State v. Beehn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to have his sentence amended to reflect credit for time served, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion.In 1994, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court did not give Defendant credit for time served. Defendant did not file a direct appeal. In 2018, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a "motion/request for jail credit." The district court denied the motion, concluding that it had no authority to amend the 1994 sentencing order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no authority for Defendant's collateral attack on the 1994 judgment through a motion for jail credit. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that the district court did not err in failing to suppress cell phone data content acquired through the execution of a search warrant.On appeal, Defendant argued that the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause and was insufficiently particular. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the search warrant was supported by probable cause and met the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and article I, 7 of the Nebraska Constitution; and (2) therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of the warrant. View "State v. Goynes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of attempted possession fo a controlled substance, a Class I misdemeanor, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant made a free, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea; (2) the district court did not err in accepting the plea because it did not violate double jeopardy where Defendant waived his rights in the plea agreement; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a term of incarceration; and (4) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel. View "State v. Manjikian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no plain error with regard to the prosecutor's opening statement or a witness's invocation of Fifth Amendment privilege in the jury's presence and that Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were without merit.Specifically, the Court held (1) no prosecutorial misconduct occurred during opening statements; (2) the bill of exceptions did not show that the prosecutor knew a witness would assert a testimonial privilege in the jury's presence; (3) expert testimony regarding blood spatter evidence was neither irrelevant nor unfairly prejudicial; and (4) therefore, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's opening statement, failing to demand compliance with Neb. Evid. R. 513(2) and failing to challenge the blood spatter evidence. View "State v. Munoz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first degree sexual assault, holding there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the authenticity for "Snapchat" evidence and that the prosecutor committed misconduct by commenting on Defendant's use of an interpreter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the "Snapchat" evidence was properly authenticated, and therefore, trial counsel did not perform deficiently in failing to object to it; (2) there was no plain error in the prosecutor's closing argument; (3) there was no error in Defendant's assignments alleging that the evidence was insufficient and that his sentence was excessive; and (4) the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's other ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "State v. Mrza" on Justia Law