Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery, first degree false imprisonment, third degree assault, third degree sexual assault, and carrying a concealed weapon. The parties subsequently entered into a sentencing agreement, pursuant to which Defendant waived his right to appeal. The district court imposed sentences in conformity with the sentencing agreement. Defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the sentencing agreement was unenforceable because appeal waivers are against public policy. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal entered into as party of the sentencing agreement was enforceable. View "State v. Dye" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of burglary with habitual criminal enhancement and sentenced to ten to twenty years’ imprisonment with credit for time served. The State discharged Defendant from the custody of the Department of Correctional Services after erroneously calculating good time on the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. The district court granted the State’s motion to secure an arrest warrant, and Defendant was subsequently brought back into the Department’s custody. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that in calculating his mandatory discharge date, the Department’s reliance on State v. Castilla violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department did not violate Defendant’s due process rights when it calculated his mandatory discharge date in accordance with the calculation method set forth in Castillas. View "Caton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of four search warrants. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court’s implicit rejection of Defendant’s testimony claiming that his cell phone was taken from his person and not pursuant to a search warrant was not clearly wrong; (2) Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his cell phone; and (3) the warrants were either sufficiently particular, or if they violated the particularity requirement, exclusion was not required because the good faith exception applied. View "State v. Tyler" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with enhancement pursuant to the habitual criminal statute. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment, with credit for time served. The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services erroneously discharged Defendant from custody before Defendant had served the entirety of his sentence. The State filed a motion asking that the district court issue a warrant for Defendant’s arrest and commitment so that he could serve out the remainder of his sentence. The district court issued the arrest and commitment warrant. Defendant appealed the court’s order for an arrest and commitment warrant. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding that the district court’s order for an arrest and commitment warrant was simply a temporary order of enforcement and not a final order, and therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the appeal. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108(1)(b) for driving under revocation. Defendant pled no contest to the complaint. The county court found Defendant’s prior convictions for driving under suspension admissible for enhancement purposes, enhanced Defendant’s conviction to third offense, and sentenced him to thirty days’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that his prior convictions for driving under suspension under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108(2) were valid convictions to enhance his conviction for driving under revocation under section 60-4,108(1). The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the county court erred in enhancing Defendant’s conviction to a third offense, as a violation of section 60-4,108(2) is not available to enhance a violation of section 60-4,108(1). View "State v. Mendoza-Bautista" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in county court of three municipal ordinance violations and sentenced to pay fines and court costs. Defendant appealed his convictions to the district court. The district court purportedly dismissed the appeal because Defendant failed to pay for the preparation of the transcript. Fourteen days later, Defendant filed a motion for an order reinstating his appeal, but the request was denied. The district court subsequently overruled Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Defendant again appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed Defendant’s appeal as being out of time. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant filed his notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court’s final order overruling Defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "State v. Meints" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to fifty years to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s decision to deny Defendant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain exhibits; and (2) affirmed the decision of the district court in all other respects. Remanded. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the county court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress because the warrantless drawing of his blood did not satisfy any exception to the requirement of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding that Defendant gave informed consent to the blood draw, and therefore, a search warrant was not necessary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a blood draw of an arrestee in a DUI case is a search subject to Fourth Amendment principles, and when the State claims the blood draw was proper pursuant to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, actual voluntary consent is to be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances, one of which is the existence of an implied consent statute; and (2) the county court did not err when it determined that Defendant consented to the search and, therefore, did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Modlin" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant, who is Chinese and only speaks “some English,” was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a chemical breath test, arguing he was not properly advised of his right to obtain an evaluation by an independent physician and additional laboratory testing because, despite an obvious language barrier, the arresting officer failed to ensure that he understood his rights in a language he could understand. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that there was neither a statutory nor constitutional requirement for the officer to advise Defendant of his right to independent evaluation and testing under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,199, and therefore, the officer’s failure to give an advisement in a language Defendant understood was not a violation of his due process or equal protection rights. View "State v. Wang" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree assault, two counts of second degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s convictions and sentences for both first degree assault and second degree assault with respect to each victim did not violate his rights against double jeopardy; (2) the district court’s evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not violate Defendant’s right of confrontation or his right to present a complete defense; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Ballew" on Justia Law