Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of knowing or intentional child abuse resulting in death and was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging errors on the part of the trial court and errors relating to the ineffectiveness of trial counsel and appellate counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in several respects and that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding, as to three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they were without merit because Defendant failed to allege how he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the court of appeals applied the wrong reasoning in finding that three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims lacked merit for failure to allege prejudice, as resolution of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims requires specific allegations of the deficient conduct, but allegations of prejudice are not necessary on direct appeal; and (2) in these three instances, the record was not sufficient to review Defendant’s claim.View "State v. Filholm" on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellant, who was not a citizen of the United States, pled guilty to attempted sexual assault in the first degree. After Appellant was released from incarceration he filed a motion to withdraw his plea and vacate the judgment, alleging that not allowing him to withdraw his plea would result in “manifest injustice” because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The district court dismissed the motion, determining that Appellant could have brought his Padilla v. Kentucky claim in an earlier postconviction action. Appellant appealed, arguing that postconviction relief was never available to him because he could not have reasonably discovered the factual predicate of his claim while incarcerated, as he did not receive notice of the government’s decision to deport him until after his release. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the exercise of due diligence, Appellant should have discovered and brought his Padilla claim while incarcerated through a postconviction action; and (2) therefore, the district court properly dismissed Appellant’s claim for manifest injustice relief. View "State v. Mamer" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree sexual assault and attempted first degree sexual assault. Before trial, Defendant sought to offer evidence that the complaining witness had an intimate relationship with a third party, arguing that the relationship showed that the complaining witness had a motive to falsely report that she had not consented to sexual activities with Defendant. The district court ruled that the rape shield statute prohibited Defendant from introducing the evidence. The jury found Defendant not guilty of first degree sexual assault but guilty of attempted first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of an intimate relationship, standing alone, is not within the scope of the rape shield statute, the relationship was relevant, the exclusion of the evidence was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Lavalleur" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion for DNA testing of a T-shirt and shell casings found at the scene of the shooting. The district court denied the request for DNA testing, concluding that Defendant had failed to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make the factual determinations required under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4120(5). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s request for DNA testing, as Defendant did not satisfy his evidentiary burdens under the DNA Testing Act.View "State v. Young" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant was charged with two counts of first degree sexual contact. In 2012, Defendant filed a second motion to discharge based upon his statutory right to a speedy trial. The district court overruled the motion, and Defendant appealed. While the appeal was pending, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw and dismiss his appeal. The Supreme Court sustained Defendant’s motion to discharge without determining how much time remained on the speedy trial clock. The State moved for rehearing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, claiming that the Court erred by failing to address how much time remained on Defendant’s speedy trial clock after the dismissal of his interlocutory speedy trial appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Defendant’s appeal, holding that Defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial and that there was no need to calculate the time remaining to bring him to trial.View "State v. Vela-Montes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted for driving under the influence, third offense. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) the court of appeals committed reversible error when it affirmed the district court’s overruling of Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop that was based on an anonymous tip, as, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, there was not reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop; and (2) double jeopardy did not preclude a remand for a new trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a teacher at a public school, was charged with five counts of sexual assault and child abuse involving four minor girls: T.P., M.K., E.M., and E.A. Three of the girls were Defendant’s students when the conduct occurred, and Defendant tutored the fourth girl, E.A. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the charges involving E.A. but was acquitted of the charges involving the other three girls. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to sever the charges and joining them all in a single trial; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his cell phone records; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for child abuse and child enticement for an illegal sexual purpose. View "State v. Knutson" on Justia Law

In 1983, when he was sixteen years old, Defendant was convicted of burglary and kidnapping. The court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the kidnapping and a term of five to twenty years’ imprisonment for the burglary. In 2013, Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence, arguing that his life sentence was illegal under the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida, in which the Court held that the imposition of life without parole on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide is unconstitutional. The district court dismissed Defendant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction because it was not brought under a recognized procedure under Nebraska law and because the sentence was currently valid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to timely assert his Graham v. Florida claim under the Nebraska Postconviction Act, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s motion and did not err in dismissing it without reaching its merit. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine. After Defendant had served the sentence for his offense Defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asserting that neither the district court nor defense counsel advised him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and arguing that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. The district court denied relief, concluding that Defendant’s claims were not based upon an error of fact that could be addressed via a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the failure of a court to advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to acceptance of the plea cannot serve as the basis for a writ of error coram nobis. View "State v. Sandoval" on Justia Law