Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute underlying a judgment is permitted in a habeas corpus proceeding after the judgment becomes final. In 2011, Petitioner was convicted of unlawful discharge of a firearm under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1212.04 and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Petitioner was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each conviction, to run consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner later filed a habeas petition in district court making a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 28-1212.04. The district court dismissed Defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when used to challenge a final conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is a collateral attack; (2) therefore, habeas corpus is not a proper remedy to challenge a petitioner’s detention pursuant to a final conviction and sentence on the basis that the statute underlying the conviction is unconstitutional; and (3) therefore, a final conviction and sentence entered upon an allegedly facially unconstitutional statute is not absolutely void, but is voidable only, and may not be attacked in a habeas corpus proceeding. View "Sanders v. Frakes" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with robbery and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time he allegedly committed the crimes. Defendant filed a motion to transfer his case to the separate juvenile court of Douglas County. The district court denied the motion to transfer. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s denial of the motion to transfer is not a final, appealable order because no substantial right was affected by the denial of Defendant’s motion to transfer. View "State v. Bluett" on Justia Law

The State moved to terminate the parental rights of both parents to Darryn C. Sharon J., the paternal grandparent of Darryn, filed a motion for custody after the mother and father had relinquished their parental rights to Sharon. As for the proceedings on the State’s motion to terminate parental rights, those proceedings were continued, and the record did not reflect the court’s disposition of the motion. After a hearing, the juvenile court issued an order overruling Sharon’s motion for custody. Sharon appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed Sharon’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the juvenile court’s order was not final and appealable because the court had not completely disposed of the custody issue, and Sharon may still gain custody. View "In re Interest of Darryn C." on Justia Law

The dispute at the center of this case concerned an intestate estate. On appeal, one of the decedent’s two children argued that the county court erred in (1) approving the final accounting and ordering distribution accordingly, and (2) naming the decedent’s daughter-in-law as an heir at law. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the county court (1) erred when it included certain nonprobate assets in the intestate estate and when it found that the decedent’s daughter-in-law was an heir at law, and (2) did not err in excluding certain assets from the intestate estate. Remanded. View "In re Estate of Balvin" on Justia Law

Appellants privately adopted the younger sister of Nizigiyimana R. (Ziggy) and sought the placement and eventual adoption of Ziggy. Ziggy’s younger sister who was born after Ziggy was removed the mother’s home and placed in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services but before the court terminated the parental rights of Ziggy’s parents. Appellants sought to intervene, on their daughter’s behalf, in the dependency proceeding, claiming a right to intervene because Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1311.02 requires the Department to make reasonable efforts for a joint sibling placement. The juvenile court denied Appellants’ leave to intervene, concluding, inter alia, that the Nebraska statutes implementing the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act did not give appellants or their daughter any cognizable interests in the dependency proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court correctly denied Appellants leave to intervene in this dependency proceeding. View "In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s conviction because the evidence established that the handgun at issue was not within Defendant’s immediate physical reach at the time he was stopped in a traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing Defendant’s conviction on the basis of insufficient evidence because the jury could have found that the handgun was on or about Defendant’s person, even though it was not within his reach while driving. View "State v. Senn" on Justia Law

Bruce Evertson was killed in a two-vehicle accident during the course and scope of his employment. Bruce’s estate filed a wrongful death claim against the insurer of the other driver. The county court accepted a settlement in the matter and allocated the proceeds among Bruce’s widow, Darla Evertson, and adult children. Darla received workers’ compensation benefits from Travelers Indemnity Company as a result of Bruce’s death. Travelers filed a subrogation claim to Darla’s settlement proceeds. The county court ordered that Travelers was not entitled to any distribution of Darla’s proceeds and did not provide Travelers any future credit against the workers’ compensation benefits it owed Darla. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and remanded with directions to vacate the order of the county court, holding that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear and decide the subrogation matter. View "In re Estate of Evertson" on Justia Law

In 1987, Defendant murdered his twelve-year-old sister. Defendant was fourteen years old at the time of the murder. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. The district court vacated Defendant’s life sentence, finding that the sentence was within the parameters of the holding in Miller, that the rule in Miller applies retroactively, and that Defendant was therefore entitled to postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the relevant sentencing scheme mandated life imprisonment without the possibility for parole, the district court was bound by Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law

After Child was born to Mother, Appellant agreed to care for Child until Mother was able to do so. Child was later returned to Mother but was subsequently placed temporarily with Appellant by order of the district court. Appellant filed a complaint seeking custody of Child, alleging that she stood in loco parentis to Child. After a custody trial, the district court awarded custody of Child to Appellant and awarded unsupervised visitation to Mother, finding this arrangement to be in the best interests of Child and consistent with parental preference. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it granted custody of Child to Appellant. View "Windham v. Griffin" on Justia Law

Sandrino T. and Remus M. were each charged in the juvenile court with six counts of ATM “skimming.” In each case, the State moved to transfer to county court. The juvenile court granted the motions. Both Sandrino and Remus appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases on appeal for disposition. The Court then dismissed each appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the orders transferring the cases from juvenile court to county court were not final and appealable because the transfer of the cases from juvenile court to criminal court did not affect the substantial rights of Sandrino and Remus. View "In re Sandrino T." on Justia Law