Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant entered a plea of no contest to second degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence. Appellant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, raising various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed Appellant’s postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the motion was time barred because it was filed more than one year following the conclusion of Appellant’s direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the limitation period did not begin to run until the time for him to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court had expired was without merit; and (2) the limitation period was not tolled during a period when Appellant was in federal custody and not in the custody of the State of Nebraska. View "State v. Huggins" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was found to be a habitual criminal. Defendant later filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, stating that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in various respects. The district court denied Defendant’s claims after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief, holding (1) the State waived the limitation period for filing the postconviction motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4) when it failed to raise the defense in the district court; and (2) Defendant’s assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first degree murder and one count of theft by deception over $1,500. After a sentencing determination hearing, Defendant was sentenced to three life sentences on the murder counts and twenty years’ imprisonment on the theft by deception count, to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) not granting Defendant’s Batson challenge; (2) denying Defendant’s request to sequester the jury during the trial; (3) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (4) denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss due to the deportation of several witnesses; (5) denying Defendant’s motion for advance ruling on certain evidentiary issues; (6) admitting the testimony of the State’s handwriting expert; (7) not allowing Defendant to admit evidence of his alibi witness; (8) not admitting evidence of a reenactment of the murders; (9) admitting a photograph of the victims; (10) denying Defendant’s motion for a new trail based on newly discovered evidence and based on the State’s opening statements; and (11) not granting a mistrial or striking the testimony of the State’s forensic anthropologist and dentist and in admitting photographs of skeletal remains. View "State v. Oliveria-Coutinho" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of driving during revocation in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108(1). Defendant was sentenced to thirty days of jail time and nine months of probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction where the only evidence presented at trial besides Defendant’s driving record was the testimony of a local law enforcement officer who testified that he found Defendant driving in a Wal-Mart parking lot. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) because the Wal-Mart parking lot was open to public access, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for violating section 60-4,108(1); and (2) the county court committed plain error when it failed to revoke Defendant’s operator’s license for one year as required by section 60-4,108(1). View "State v. Frederick" on Justia Law

In 2010, Appellant was administratively adjudicated in Kansas to have committed the offense of driving under the influence. In 2013, Appellant was convicted in South Dakota of driving under the influence. Thereafter, the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) revoked Appellant’s commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,168. The district court affirmed the lifetime revocation. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the Kansas administrative license revocation and the South Dakota conviction for driving under the influence were offenses included in section 60-4,168(1)(a) and therefore provided a basis to revoke his CDL. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that out-of-state convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol are included in the provisions of section 60-4,168 pertaining to the revocation of CDLs. View "Klug v. Neb. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person in connection with the 2013 shooting death of Kenneth Gunia. On appeal, Defendant argued as his only assignment of error that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to convict him of first degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support entry of the jury’s verdict of first degree murder. View "State v. Escamilla" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to one count of aiding and abetting second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to no less than life imprisonment or more than life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the Court does not reach some of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the record on direct appeal was insufficient for the Court to do so; (2) Defendant’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit; and (3) the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Casares" on Justia Law

The cotrustees of a trust filed suit against several parties, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties. The district court dismissed five of the cotrustees’ causes of action. The remaining defendants moved for summary judgment and sought attorney fees. The district court granted the motions for summary judgment. Before the scheduled hearing on the motions for attorney fees, the costrustees filed a notice of appeal. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the motions for attorney fees because of the pending appeal. Several defendants appealed from that order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding (1) because of the absence of a ruling on attorney fees left a portion of the judgment unresolved, the orders from which the cotrustees appealed were not final, and thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the first appeal; and (2) because the district court declined to rule on the motions for attorney fees, which were still pending before the district court, the Supreme Court also lacked jurisdiction over the second appeal. View "Murray v. Stine" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle in a willful reckless manner to avoid arrest. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court erred by giving a jury instruction on the material elements of the offense that omitted the element of an attempt to arrest or issue a citation to Defendant, but the error was harmless. The State and Defendant petitioned the Supreme Court for further review, arguing that the court of appeals erred in finding that an attempt at an arrest or citation was an essential element of the crime charged. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision affirming Defendant’s conviction but disapproved of its ruling that, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-905, an attempt to arrest or cite a defendant must be separately identified as an element in jury instructions. Therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that an attempted arrest or citation was an element of the offense. View "State v. Armagost" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge of sexual assault of a child in the first degree. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that the offense carried a mandatory minimum of at least twenty years. The court proceeded to impose a sentence of forty to fifty years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not properly advising him of the crime’s range of penalties before accepting his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court incorrectly advised Defendant that the range of penalties was twenty years’ to life imprisonment, but the error was not prejudicial and did not affect the validity of Defendant’s plea. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law