Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case brought under the Developmental Disabilities Court-Ordered Custody Act (DDCCA) the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that T.W. was a person in need of court-ordered custody and adopting the custody and treatment plan prepared by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with additional restrictions, holding that the district court was entitled to modify the terms of the treatment plan if the additional terms are supported by sufficient evidence.The State filed a petition under the DDCCA for court-ordered custody of T.W., an adult male. The district court found that T.W. was a person in need of court-ordered custody and treatment and, in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. 71-1124, ordered DHHS to prepare a written custody and treatment plan. After a hearing, the district court adopted DHHS' treatment plan and added conditions to T.W.'s placement that were not part of the plan offered by the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's order, including the added conditions, conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. View "In re T.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2101 to 29-2103 and his motion to withdraw his plea under the common-law procedure recognized in State v. Gonzalez, 830 N.W.2d 504 (2013), holding that Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for such relief.Defendant pleaded no contest to and was adjudged guilty of one count of attempted delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and sentenced to an eight-to-twelve-year term of imprisonment. Later, in response to the indictment of Nebraska State Patrol evidence technician Anna Idigima, Defendant applied for a new trial and moved to withdraw his plea. The district court overruled the motions after holding hearings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling the motions because Defendant failed to satisfy the requirements for a new trial under section 29-2101 and the common-law procedure for withdrawing a plea after conviction. View "State v. Muratella" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a neighborhood association seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant, holding that the district court did not err in granting the association's motion for summary judgment or in overruling the homeowners' cross-motion for summary judgment.The Pine Tree Neighborhood Association (PTNA) brought this action against Homeowners alleging that Homeowners' lot was subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting them from continuously parking their RV on their lot and seeking a permanent injunction. In response, Homeowners alleged that the restrictive covenants were unenforceable as a matter of law and, alternatively, that the PTNA waived the right to enforce the covenants. The district court granted summary judgment for the PTNA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the PTNA. View "Pine Tree Neighborhood Ass'n v. Moses" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the court of appeals erred by granting relief on a claim that Appellant did not present to the district court.Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting that his failure timely to appeal his convictions was due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that Appellant did not direct counsel to file an appeal but that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to consult with Appellant as to whether he wished to appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege in his postconviction motion that trial counsel failed to consult with him about whether he wanted an appeal; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals erred by reversing the district court's decision on that basis. View "State v. Ammons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's resentencing for the eight felony crimes he committed when he was seventeen years old, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments that the district court imposed an excessive aggregate sentence or an unlawful de facto life sentence.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and related crimes. The court sentenced Defendant to mandatory life imprisonment for each first degree murder conviction and to twelve to fifteen years of prison for each remaining conviction, with all sentences to run concurrently except the sentences for weapon convictions, which were to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying felony conviction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court resentenced Defendant to a combined sentence of 128 to 180 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing Defendant. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence causing serious bodily injury and his sentence to an eighteen-month term of imprisonment, eighteen months of post-release supervision, and revocation of his driver's license, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by overruling his motion to suppress the results of a breath test administered to him using a DataMaster instrument and by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting the results of the DataMaster test; and (2) Defendant's sentence, which was within the applicable statutory range, was not excessive. View "State v. Alkazahy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions.During the underlying jury trial, the prosecution presented various forms of circumstantial evidence connecting Defendant to the shooting death of the victim int his case. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in admitting "manipulated video surveillance from multiple sources in [an] attempt to match the walking pattern of the individuals in those videos to a video depicting [Defendant] walking." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "State v. Lorello" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's motion to modify alimony for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to modify alimony.The parties in this case were divorced by consent decree that awarded Appellant alimony that could be modified if Appellee accepted a veteran's disability pension. Appellant later filed her complaint for modification alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it believed it was being asked to divide Appellee's veteran's disability benefits, an action that was preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was merely being asked to consider modifying alimony based on a reduction in Appellant's nondisability pension he shared with Appellee, and the district court had jurisdiction to consider this request. View "Parish v. Parish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Adams Land & Cattle, LLC (ALCC), a commercial livestock company, in this dispute regarding the meaning of a statute governing cattle brand inspection, holding that the district court erred in its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 54-1,122.ALCC and the Nebraska Brand Committee disputed whether section 54-1,122 requires direct movement from the point of origin with required paperwork to avoid a brand inspection upon entry to the registered feedlot. The district court granted declaratory relief and a permanent injunction for ALCC, and the Brand Committee appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in its interpretation of section 54-1,122 and in granting a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in favor of ALCC.. View "Adams Land & Cattle v. Widdowson" on Justia Law

In this case brought against Defendant, the sheriff of Dawes County, for failing to receive a lawfully-committed prisoner into the county jail the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court convicting and sentencing Defendant for official misconduct in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-924, holding that there was no error.Defendant was charged with official misconduct for refusing to receive a prisoner, who was arrested without a warrant for felony offenses, and the county court found Defendant guilty. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain meaning of "lawful commitment" does not require a court order; (2) because a trier of fact found that Defendant's claim that the decision not to receive the prisoner based on the Jail Standards was not credible, Defendant was not entitled to relief on this allegation of error; (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claim that, absent a court order, sheriffs effectively have inherent authority to decline to receive arrestees; and (4) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Dailey" on Justia Law