Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Joel Woodward was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) a second time, the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued an order revoking Woodward’s commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life. Woodward did not appeal from the lifetime revocation. Woodward later filed motions asking the sentencing court to set aside both DUI convictions pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2264. The sentencing court set aside both DUI convictions. Woodward’s attorney subsequently wrote a letter to the director of the DMV asking that Woodward’s CDL be reinstated or that he be deemed eligible to reapply for a CDL. The director denied the request in a letter. Woodward filed an appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,105. The district court dismissed Woodward’s petition on several ground, including that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the director’s letter did not constitute a “final decision or order.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the letter from which Woodward appealed was not a “final decision or order” of the director or the DMV under section 60-4,105. View "Woodward v. Lahm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion and an amended motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the issues raised in the motions for postconviction relief were known and/or knowable at the time of Appellant’s direct appeal. The court further denied Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed in forma pauperis, and for recusal. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that that Appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearings on two of his claims. The Court also directed the district court to grant Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life without parole on both counts. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. This appeal concerned Appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. The district court partially granted the successive postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause with directions to overrule Appellant’s second motion for posconviction relief, holding (1) the district court erred in granting postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing; but (2) Appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his claims either because he failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights or because the record showed he was entitled to no relief. Remanded with directions to overrule Appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to attempted possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. The district court sentenced Defendant to two jail sentences, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying him probation based solely on “its erroneous interpretation that his immigration status prohibited probation.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court relied on more than just Defendant’s undocumented status when imposing sentence; (2) the court properly considered probation but found Defendant to be an inappropriate candidate; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to place Defendant on probation for his convictions. View "State v. Cerritos-Valdez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder and other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for each first degree murder. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s life sentences under Miller v. Alabama and also vacated his other sentences because the sentencing court committed plain error by ordering some sentences to run concurrently with other sentences. After a hearing, Appellant was resentenced in accordance with established law. Appellant appealed his resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in the sentences it imposed upon Appellant; (2) the aggregate of Appellant’s sentences did not constitute a de facto life sentence, and Appellant received the protections required by Miller for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense; (3) the district court did not impose an aggregate de facto life sentence; and (4) Appellant’s resentencing was not presumptively vindictive. View "State v. Castaneda" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance and unlawful acts relating to drugs. After a sentencing hearing, the district court found that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation and therefore sentenced her to terms of imprisonment for each conviction to be served concurrent with one another. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court did not follow Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, enacted as part of 2015 Neb. Laws L.B. 605, when it found that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation with regard to the possession conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant’s motion to continue sentencing; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that there were substantial and compelling reasons that Defendant could not effectively and safely be supervised in the community on probation. View "State v. Baxter" on Justia Law

After a bench trial on stipulated facts, Defendant was found guilty of refusal of a chemical test in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197. Defendant appealed, arguing, primarily, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the traffic stop was conducted without reasonable suspicion and that section 6-6,197.09 and related statutes are unconstitutional because they are void for vagueness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) section 60-6,197.09 is not unconstitutionally vague; and (3) Defendant was not denied due process when he was denied probation. View "State v. Arizola" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eighty years to life. Defendant appealed, assigning numerous errors addressed to the grand jury process and trial rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not commit prejudicial error when it (1) overruled Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause; (2) overruled Defendant’s motion to quash the indictment due to errors relating to the special prosecutor; (3) overruled Defendant’s motion in limine to prohibit the State from presenting evidence regarding DNA testing of certain evidence; and (4) overruled Defendant’s motions for mistrial. View "State v. Chauncey" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant was sixteen years old when he committed the crimes leading to his convictions. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. In 2013, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief seeking resentencing on his murder conviction pursuant to Miller v. Alabama. The district court granted postconviction relief. After a resentencing hearing, Appellant was sentenced to ninety to ninety years’ imprisonment on the first degree murder conviction. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits and supported by the record, and there was no merit to Appellant’s claim that his sentence was excessive. View "State v. Garza" on Justia Law

In 1994, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the acts leading to his convictions. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief. The motion was granted and Defendant’s life sentence was vacated and the cause remanded. Upon resentencing, Defendant was sentenced to ninety years’ to ninety years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentence imposed upon Defendant on resentencing was not erroneous; and (2) the sentencing court properly considered Defendant’s youth and used adequate procedural safeguards when sentencing him. View "State v. Mantich" on Justia Law