Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the decision of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeals Board (Appeals Board) upholding the decision of the Institutional Disciplinary Committee (IDC) to sanction Appellant for drug use while in prison, holding that there was no plain error.Appellant, an inmate incarcerated under the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS), was issued a misconduct charge for "Drug or Intoxicant Abuse" in violation of an NDCS rule. After a hearing, the IDC found that Appellant had violated the rule. The Appeals Board upheld the decision, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit plain error in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the IDC's finding that Appellant violated the rule at issue. View "Haynes v. Neb. Dep't of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convincing Defendant of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence to sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) there was no juror misconduct during deliberations when jurors allegedly discussed the reputation of the victim's family members and their potentially seeking revenge; (3) the trial court did not err by finding the averment of a juror about the disputed juror statements inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-606(2) and finding that the exception for "extraneous prejudicial information" did not apply to the juror's testimony; and (4) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court imposing both imprisonment and post-release supervision in a criminal case, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal.Appellant pleaded no contest to a Class IIIA felony and a Class I misdemeanor. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and to one year of post-release supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any alleged error regarding Appellant's purported failure to be advised of the conditions of her post-release supervision did not prejudicially affect Appellant's substantial rights; (2) the district court did not impose excessive sentences; and (3) Appellant's last assignment of error was moot. View "State v. Applehans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to criminal charges against him after he was sentenced but before the time to file a direct appeal had expired, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and use of a weapon to commit a felony. After sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas on, among others, the grounds that his prior counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to enter into the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant did not show that withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not have the authority to allow Defendant to withdraw his pleas. View "State v. Boone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer.Defendant, who was charged with first-degree sexual assault, requested that the district court transfer his case to juvenile court, asserting that he was under the age of eighteen at the time of the alleged offense. After a hearing, the district court overruled the motion to transfer, finding that the State had met its burden to show that a sound basis existed for retaining jurisdiction of this matter in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this case was not moot; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. View "State v. Aldana Cardenas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to determine the merits and correctly rejected the petition on its merits.Appellant, who was incarcerated at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that, under the relevant statutes, he had reached his mandatory discharge date, and seeking absolute discharge and release from custody. The district court denied a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition, concluding that it was deprived of jurisdiction in the present matter but, even if it had jurisdiction, the petition failed on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition; and (2) did not err when it determined that Appellant's claim for habeas corpus relief was without merit. View "Schaeffer v. Gable" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second degree murder, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his character, specifically that he conducted drug deals after the murder, he was the victim of a robbery, and he owned firearms. Defendant also challenged cellular telephone information obtained from a "tower dump." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the admission of the challenged evidence; and (2) even if the cell phone tower dump was not a search and subject to Fourth Amendment protections, the order under 18 U.S.C. 86-2,106 allowing the dump was executed in good faith. View "State v. Elias" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2101 to 29-2103 and his motion to withdraw his plea under the common-law procedure recognized in State v. Gonzalez, 830 N.W.2d 504 (2013), holding that Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for such relief.Defendant pleaded no contest to and was adjudged guilty of one count of attempted delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced to an eight-to-twelve-year term of imprisonment. Later, in response to the indictment of Nebraska State Patrol evidence technician Anna Idigima, Defendant applied for a new trial and moved to withdraw his plea. The district court overruled the motions after holding hearings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling the motions because Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for a new trial under section 29-2101 and the common-law procedure for withdrawing a plea after conviction. View "State v. Muratella" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the court of appeals erred by granting relief on a claim that Appellant did not present to the district court.Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting that his failure timely to appeal his convictions was due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that Appellant did not direct counsel to file an appeal but that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult with Appellant as to whether he wished to appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege in his postconviction motion that trial counsel failed to consult with him about whether he wanted an appeal; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred by reversing the district court's decision on that basis. View "State v. Ammons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's resentencing for the eight felony crimes he committed when he was seventeen years old, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments that the district court imposed an excessive aggregate sentence or an unlawful de facto life sentence.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and related crimes. The court sentenced Defendant to mandatory life imprisonment for each first degree murder conviction and to twelve to fifteen years of prison for each remaining conviction, with all sentences to run concurrently except the sentences for weapon convictions, which were to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying felony conviction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court resentenced Defendant to a combined sentence of 128 to 180 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing Defendant. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law