Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury and his sentence to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment, eighteen months of post-release supervision, and revocation of his driver's license, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by overruling his motion to suppress the results of a breath test administered to him using a DataMaster instrument and by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting the results of the DataMaster test; and (2) Defendant's sentence, which was within the applicable statutory range, was not excessive. View "State v. Alkazahy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions.During the underlying jury trial, the prosecution presented various forms of circumstantial evidence connecting Defendant to the shooting death of the victim int his case. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in admitting "manipulated video surveillance from multiple sources in [an] attempt to match the walking pattern of the individuals in those videos to a video depicting [Defendant] walking." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "State v. Lorello" on Justia Law

In this case brought against Defendant, the sheriff of Dawes County, for failing to receive a lawfully-committed prisoner into the county jail the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court convicting and sentencing Defendant for official misconduct in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-924, holding that there was no error.Defendant was charged with official misconduct for refusing to receive a prisoner, who was arrested without a warrant for felony offenses, and the county court found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain meaning of "lawful commitment" does not require a court order; (2) because a trier of fact found that Defendant's claim that the decision not to receive the prisoner based on the Jail Standards was not credible, Defendant was not entitled to relief on this allegation of error; (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that, absent a court order, sheriffs effectively have inherent authority to decline to receive arrestees; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Dailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's appeal from his conviction and sentence, holding that Defendant's agreement to waive his right to appeal applied to and was enforceable against his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.Prior to the sentencing hearing for his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and driving under the influence Defendant entered into a plea and sentencing agreement agreeing in a second case to plead no contest to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and to waive his right to appeal issues in both cases. The district court accepted the plea and sentence agreement and sentenced Defendant in both cases. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant's ensuing appeal asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Defendant to testify in his own behalf and for eliciting incriminating testimony, holding that Defendant validly waived the right to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on appeal. View "State v. Hamm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion of the court of appeals that the record refuted two of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to improper evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, there was no error in the court's ultimate judgment.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and sentenced to a term of twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, thus rejecting Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to object to improper rule 404 evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while this Court's reasoning differed from that employed by the court of appeals, this Court's conclusion on the judgment was the same. View "State v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and failure to affix a tax stamp, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found when law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of a duffel bag and suitcase on a passenger trial; (2) did not err in failing to suppress certain testimony at trial; (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) did not abuse its wide discretion in sentencing Defendant to four to six years of imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. View "State v. Vaughn" on Justia Law