Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction on direct appeal. In 2009, Defendant filed a motion under the DNA Testing Act for retesting of biological material related to Defendant’s prosecution. After a hearing, the district court overruled the 2009 motion for DNA testing. Defendant’s appeal from that order was summarily dismissed by the court of appeals. In 2015, Defendant filed another motion for DNA testing under the Act. The State objected to the motion on the ground of res judicata. The district court dismissed the DNA motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s successive motion for DNA testing on the ground that it was governed by the determinations made under the 2009 motion. View "State v. Marrs" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute underlying a judgment is permitted in a habeas corpus proceeding after the judgment becomes final. In 2011, Petitioner was convicted of unlawful discharge of a firearm under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1212.04 and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Petitioner was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each conviction, to run consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner later filed a habeas petition in district court making a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 28-1212.04. The district court dismissed Defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when used to challenge a final conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is a collateral attack; (2) therefore, habeas corpus is not a proper remedy to challenge a petitioner’s detention pursuant to a final conviction and sentence on the basis that the statute underlying the conviction is unconstitutional; and (3) therefore, a final conviction and sentence entered upon an allegedly facially unconstitutional statute is not absolutely void, but is voidable only, and may not be attacked in a habeas corpus proceeding. View "Sanders v. Frakes" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with robbery and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time he allegedly committed the crimes. Defendant filed a motion to transfer his case to the separate juvenile court of Douglas County. The district court denied the motion to transfer. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s denial of the motion to transfer is not a final, appealable order because no substantial right was affected by the denial of Defendant’s motion to transfer. View "State v. Bluett" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction because the evidence established that the handgun at issue was not within Defendant’s immediate physical reach at the time he was stopped in a traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing Defendant’s conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence because the jury could have found that the handgun was on or about Defendant’s person, even though it was not within his reach while driving. View "State v. Senn" on Justia Law

In 1987, Defendant murdered his twelve-year-old sister. Defendant was fourteen years old at the time of the murder. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. The district court vacated Defendant’s life sentence, finding that the sentence was within the parameters of the holding in Miller, that the rule in Miller applies retroactively, and that Defendant was therefore entitled to postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the relevant sentencing scheme mandated life imprisonment without the possibility for parole, the district court was bound by Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law

Sandrino T. and Remus M. were each charged in the juvenile court with six counts of ATM “skimming.” In each case, the State moved to transfer to county court. The juvenile court granted the motions. Both Sandrino and Remus appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases on appeal for disposition. The Court then dismissed each appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the orders transferring the cases from juvenile court to county court were not final and appealable because the transfer of the cases from juvenile court to criminal court did not affect the substantial rights of Sandrino and Remus. View "In re Sandrino T." on Justia Law