Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2003, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Appellant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. In 2012, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds. The trial court dismissed the claims without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant appealed the dismissal of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, given the great weight of the evidence against him, there was no ineffective assistance of counsel because even finding the allegations true would not have been prejudicial to Appellant’s case. View "State v. Fernando-Granados" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault and sentenced to three to five years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to allow Defendant to inquire on redirect examination into the nature of his witness’ felony conviction after he was impeached by the State; (2) not granting the parties’ joint motion for mistrial; and (3) admitting certain hearsay statements under the excited utterances exception. The Court further held that because the record was incomplete, the Court could not reach Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal. View "State v. Castillo-Zamora" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm at a dwelling while in or near a motor vehicle, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1212.04, and using a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) counsel could not have been deficient for failing to raise a novel constitutional challenge to section 28-1212.04, and therefore, the district court did not err when it denied this claim; and (2) the record refuted the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence obtained from the stop and search of Defendant’s vehicle, and therefore, the district court did not err when it denied this claim. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant pled no contest to first degree murder. Appellant was eighteen years old at the time of the offense. Appellant was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and Appellant’s first postconviction motion was denied. Appellant filed a second motion for postconviction relief, claiming that she was a “minor” as defined under certain Nebraska law at the time of her offense, and therefore, her life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied the motion, concluding that because Appellant was not under the age of eighteen at the time of her offense, Miller did not apply to her case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the relief afforded in Miller and resulting resentencing under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105.02 apply to persons who were under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes and therefore did not apply to Defendant. View "State v. Wetherell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and other crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the contents of a cell phone that was among the items of personal property taken from him upon his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in not suppressing evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone because, while there was not a valid search warrant in this case, the issuance of the warrants was reasonable, and the warrants were carried out in good faith; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant’s other objections to the admission of evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant’s remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault of a child. Defendant appealed, assigning as error that an alternate thirteenth juror deliberated and was polled in the guilty verdict against him. The original bill of exceptions reflected the thirteenth juror’s being polled. A reproofread version of the bill of exceptions that replaced the original bill of exceptions, however, reflected only twelve jurors polled for the verdict. The court of appeals remanded the matter to the district court for a hearing on the question of the accuracy of the bill of exceptions. The district court entered an order finding that the reproofread version of the bill of exceptions was the bill of exceptions upon which Defendant’s appeal should proceed. Defendant argued before the court of appeals that the bill of exceptions was not credible and that a new trial was warranted. The court of appeals affirmed, finding no merit to Defendant’s assignments of error. The Supreme Court affirmed on further review, holding that the district court did not plainly err in determining that the presently filed bill of exceptions was accurate. View "State v. Kays" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and two related counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to terms of life imprisonment for each of the murder convictions, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, raising allegations of error related to an evidentiary ruling, a jury instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, and assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary ruling; (2) Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were either without merit or Defendant was not prejudiced by the misconduct; and (3) Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims either failed or could not be addressed on direct appeal. View "State v. Dubray" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six felonies arising from a shooting involving multiple victims, including attempted first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony with respect to Kevin Guzman. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions as to Guzman and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred in excluding Guzman’s testimony as to Guzman’s aggressive and violent character while using drugs and alcohol. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that Defendant’s self-defense claim was prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence of Guzman’s aggressive and violent behavior. Remanded with direction that the relevant convictions and sentences be reinstated. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to one count of burglary and was sentenced to six to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant argued that he was entitled to credit for time served of 197 days - four for the current charge and 193 for the time he was incarcerated pending his trial for previous charges of which he was acquitted. The district court gave Defendant credit only for time served of four days. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to credit for time served for the 193 days he spent in custody prior to his acquittal in his prior criminal case; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to six to eight years’ imprisonment.View "State v. Carngbe" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging several counts against Defendant. Defendant was subsequently granted an indefinite continuance. The State then filed an amended information against Defendant, charging him with additional crimes. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, contending that he was not brought to trial before the running of the time for trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s denial of the motion for discharge did not violate Defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial or Defendant’s right to due process because Defendant’s indefinite motion for a continuance was not automatically extinguished by the State’s amended information, and thus Defendant was not relieved of his duty to give notice of a request for trial in order to end the continuance and its accompanying statutory waiver of the right to a speedy trial.View "State v. Hettle" on Justia Law