Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court terminating Defendant’s post-release supervision “unsatisfactorily,” holding that the district court erred in terminating post-release supervision.After finding that Defendant had violated his post-release supervision, the district court decided that it was not appropriate to revoke the supervision and so terminated the post-release supervision altogether. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court was authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2268(3) to either order a reprimand or warning, intensify supervision or reporting, impose additional conditions of probation, impose custodial sanctions, or extend the term of probation; and (2) because the district court did none of these, the sentencing order was erroneous and resulted in an excessively lenient sentence. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the postconviction court denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief asserting twelve acts of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (2) Defendant’s claims of sentencing error did not warrant an evidentiary hearing; and (3) because Appellant’s postconviction motion presented no justiciable issues for postconviction relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence imposed on his conviction for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and affirmed his convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.After a jury found Defendant guilty, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the murder count. On the second count, the court initially imposed a consecutive prison sentence of fifty to fifty years but, after a sidebar conference requested by defense counsel, reduced the term to twenty to twenty years. The Supreme Court held (1) as to Defendant’s assignments of error, any error was harmless; and (2) there was plain error in the sentence imposed on the second count because the trial court’s initial sentence was validly imposed and took effect as soon as it was pronounced, and therefore, the court’s subsequent reduction of the term of imprisonment was a nullity. View "State v. Kidder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for incest but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing due to plain error in connection with sentencing.Appellant entered a no contest plea to incest. The district court sentenced Defendant to four to four years’ imprisonment, with credit for eleven days served, and a term of two years’ postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the district court’s incorrect advisement to Appellant regarding the collateral Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) consequence of his plea did not invalidate his plea or warrant the relief of withdrawal; and (2) the district court failed to complete the SORA notification requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4007, which the court was mandated to do in this case, and therefore, the case must be remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Lane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts supporting the majority of his claims and that his remaining claims were without merit.Appellant pled no contest to first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant’s claims were either insufficiently pled or without merit. The court also denied Appellant’s request for appointment of postconviction counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege facts sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claim; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder, manslaughter, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant’s allegations of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that evidence obtained pursuant to an alleged invalid warrant should have been excluded at his jury trial and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Defendant’s first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) there was no merit to any of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "State v. Nolt" on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal is not authorized under Nebraska’s “three strikes” prison litigation statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-3401, which prohibits a prisoner who has previously filed at least three frivolous civil actions from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) without leave of court.In this action alleging civil rights violations relating to Appellant’s treatment by prison officials and the conditions of his confinement, the district court initially sustained Appellant’s motion to proceed IFP. Upon Appellees’ motion to reconsider, the district court vacated the prior order allowing Appellant to proceed IFP pursuant to the “three strikes” provision because Appellant had previously filed three district court cases in which he had been denied IFP status. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Appellant’s interlocutory appeal, holding that neither section 25-3401 nor the general IFP statute statute provides a right to interlocutory appeal of a “three strikes” denial. View "Robinson v. Houston" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s plea in bar to charges of sexual assault of a child.During his criminal trial, Defendant moved for a mistrial based upon the court’s decision to grant the State’s motion to amend the information and a jury instruction after the jury had begun deliberations. The court sustained the motion and declared a mistrial. Thereafter, Defendant filed a plea in bar asserting that a new trial would subject him to double jeopardy because the State created the need for a mistrial. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a new trial because Defendant failed to show that the State provoked him into moving for a mistrial and that double jeopardy did not prevent a new trial. View "State v. Bedolla" on Justia Law