Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder in connection with the shooting death of an acquaintance of Defendant. Defendant filed three motions to suppress evidence, all of which were denied. Defendant appealed the denials of his motions to suppress and argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err when it (1) denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the search of Defendant’s person; (2) failed to suppress evidence found at Defendant’s residence pursuant to a search warrant; (3) did not exclude expert testimony and exhibits concerning the ShotSpotter system, which detected the location of the shots fired the night of the murder; and (4) found the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellant pled guilty to attempted possession of a controlled substance. In 2012, Appellant filed a motion seeking to withdraw his 2006 plea, alleging that neither his counsel nor the court had advised him of the immigration consequences of his plea prior to entry of the plea. The district court dismissed Appellant’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, concluding (1) the decision in Padilla v. Kentucky did not apply retroactively to Appellant’s 2006 plea and conviction; and (2) the court did not have jurisdiction because Appellant had completed his sentence and was no longer in the State’s custody. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that Padilla v. Kentucky did not apply retroactively to Appellant’s 2006 plea-based conviction; but (2) the district court had jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea under the remedy provided in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02(2) without regard to whether Appellant had completed his sentence. View "State v. Chojolan" on Justia Law

In 2013, Francisco Rodriguez moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate his 2004 conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance (Class I misdemeanor). He argued that before entering a guilty plea in the 2004 proceedings, he did not receive the proper advisement under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02(1) (Reissue 2008), and that he currently faced immigration consequences from the resulting conviction. Because Rodriguez moved to withdraw his plea after he had completed his sentence of 2 years’ probation, the district court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the court did have jurisdiction, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Nebraska v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Appellant Angelo Tolbert was convicted of first degree murder, first degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment on each of the other three counts, to be served consecutively. Tolbert appealed, arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the sentences imposed were excessive; and (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Tolbert" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of issuing a bad check. Upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of his probation, the district court entered an order releasing Appellant from probation. Appellant then moved to set aside his conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2264(2). The district court denied Appellant’s motion, concluding that because the conditions of Appellant’s probation included confinement in the county jail, Appellant did not fall within the class of persons whose convictions may be set aside pursuant to section 29-2264(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 29-2264(2) does not preclude relief merely because the person placed on probation was subjected to jail time as a condition of probation. Remanded. View "State v. Kudlacz" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, and first degree sexual assault on a child. Appellant was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied. Appellant then filed a second postconviction petition and sought relief under the common-law writ of error coram nobis. The district court denied postconviction relief, concluding that Appellant failed to raise any ground for relief not previously available to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s postconviction claims were procedurally barred because they were or could have been litigated on direct appeal or in his previous postconviction petition; and (2) Appellant failed to raise any basis warranting coram nobis relief. View "State v. Hessler" on Justia Law

In 1989, James Dean and Ada JoAnn Taylor (Appellees) were swept into the investigation into the 1985 death of Helen Wilson. Both Appellees ultimately confessed to their involvement in Wilson’s murder after receiving “help” from law enforcement officers to remember the details of the crime. DNA tests later determined that neither Appellee had any involvement in the crime. Appellees subsequently received pardons. In 2010, Appellees brought actions against the State pursuant to the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act. The district court found in favor of Appellees and awarded each of them damages. The State appealed, arguing that Appellees could not recover under the Act because they made false statements in connection with the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to the State’s liability, holding that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the phrase “false statement” or in finding that Appellees did not make false statements under the Act. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary and was found to be a habitual criminal. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of ten to ten years’ imprisonment for each burglary conviction. The district court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part remanded for a determination of whether the sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a term of ten to ten years’ imprisonment for each conviction; but (2) erroneously concluded that it was required to impose consecutive sentences on the two burglary convictions that were enhanced by the habitual criminal statute. View "State v. Berney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, making numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it concluded that Appellant’s claims were without merit and denied his motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In 1985, Appellant was found guilty of second degree murder. The Supreme Court later decided State v. Myers, which held that if malice was an essential element of the crime of second degree murder and the jury was not so instructed, reversal of the conviction was required. In accordance with Myers, Appellant’s conviction was vacated and a retrial ordered. Before Myers was decided, however, Appellant was charged in Lancaster County with several felonies. Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. The second degree murder charges against Appellant were eventually dismissed. In 2009, Appellant unsuccessfully filed a claim asking for compensation under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act (Act). Appellant then filed suit against the State, alleging that he was entitled to damages for his wrongful conviction for second degree murder. After a trial, the district court found that Appellant had not shown he was innocent of the murder, as required by the Act, and dismissed Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) requiring Appellant to prove his innocence and not finding Appellant innocent under the Act; (2) denying Appellant’s motion for counsel; and (3) considering Appellant’s Lancaster County convictions. View "Hess v. State" on Justia Law