Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the dissolution decree in this case, holding that the no-fault divorce statutory scheme governing dissolution found at Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-347 to 42-381 is not unconstitutional.On appeal from the dissolution decree, Defendant argued that, by virtue of establishing no-fault divorce, the statutory scheme deprives defendants in dissolution actions of procedural due process and constitutes special legislation in favor of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 42-347(3) does not violate the procedural due process provisions of the United States and Nebraska Constitutions; and (2) section 42-347(3) does not constitute special legislation granting divorces. View "Dycus v. Dycus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an order denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, holding that precedent required that the Court vacate the portion of the order related to ineffective assistance for failure to investigate.Defendant pled guilty to three counts of first degree murder and other crimes. No direct appeal was filed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and that he would not have entered into the plea agreement if his attorney had properly investigated his case. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant's ineffective assistance claim concerning his direct appeal; and (2) the district court failed to follow the directive in State v. Determan, 873 N.W.2d 390 (Nev. 2016), when disposing of Defendant's second postconviction claim. View "State v. Dalton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court granting Gerald F.'s petition to be appointed guardian and conservator of a minor child and ordering Gerald to pay the guardian ad litem's (GAL) reasonable fees and costs, holding that the court acted within its statutory authority.After Gerald filed his petition to be appointed guardian and conservator he moved for the appointment of a GAL to represent the interests of the minor child. The motion was sustained by the county court. After a trial, the court granted Gerald's petition to be appointed the child's guardian and conservator. The county court subsequently determined that Gerald must pay the GAL's fees and costs. Gerald appealed, arguing that the order to pay fees and costs was not statutorily authorized. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's order was authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-2643. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of J.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge under Nebraska's speedy trial statutes, holding that Defendant was entitled to absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes.The State filed theft charges against Defendant on March 29, 2017. When Defendant did not appear for a scheduled arraignment the county court issued a warrant for his arrest. On April 24, 2019, Defendant was arrested. Defendant moved for absolute discharge on the grounds that he had been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. The county court overruled the motion, stating that the period of time during which the arrest warrant was pending was excluded under the speedy trial statutes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in finding that the pendency of the warrant resulted in excluded time, and the State produced insufficient evidence at the speedy trial hearing that could support any other basis for excluded time; and (2) Defendant was entitled to absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes. View "State v. Chapman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court imposing a life sentence for a second degree murder conviction to run consecutively with a sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not impose an excessive sentence.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The district court imposed a life sentence for the second degree murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for the use of a deadly weapon conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentence imposed by the district court was not excessive. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences in two cases in which he entered into no contest pleas to felony charges, holding that there was no error.In two separate cases, Defendant was charged with multiple felonies. Defendant entered pleas of no contest in both cases. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and in imposing excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based not understand the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act consequences; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of Defendant's sentences. View "State v. Canady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for child abuse, holding that the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-1848 allows a victim both to fill out a victim impact statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also to write and read a separate letter to be offered at the defendant's sentencing hearing.Defendant pled no contest to one count of misdemeanor child abuse. After a hearing, Defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the victim to submit a statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also allowing her to read a separate letter that was offered into evidence for purposes of resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) Defendant's sentence was not excessive. View "State v. Hurd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery, holding that the Court was unable to read the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice, as required by Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 2-109(E).Defendant was denied a jury trial for his alleged violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery despite a separate ordinance imposing a ten-year ban upon possession of firearms by a person convicted of violating the battery ordinance. Following a bench trial, the county court convicted Defendant of violating the battery ordinance. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, implicitly challenging the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705, which prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. Defendant, however, failed to comply with the procedural rule governing constitutional challenges to statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed after strictly applying Rule 2-109(E), holding that the Court was unable to reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide the notice required by Rule 2-109(E). View "State v. Denton" on Justia Law

After Appellant appealed an order of the district court finding him in contempt of court and modifying terms of a parenting plan, the Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from an order of commitment and a purge order containing a reduction in Appellant's parenting time, holding that, as to the first appeal, there was no abuse of discretion, and that, as to the second appeal, there was no final order.The district court found Appellant in contempt of court for violating parenting provisions of a dissolution decree, imposed a suspended jail sentence, and modified terms of the parenting plan in this case. Appellant appealed this order. While the appeal was pending, the court entered an order of commitment and a purge order reducing Appellant's parenting time but setting the matter for a future review hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal for lack of a final order, holding (1) the modifications at issue in the first appeal were part of the equitable relief the court had the authority to provide; and (2) the second appeal was not taken from a final order. View "Yori v. Helms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a series of orders fixing fees for court-appointed counsel in a juvenile proceeding, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.After Mother's children were adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) the State moved to terminate Mother's parental rights. The juvenile court denied the State's motion following a trial. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Mother filed three fee applications seeking payment for services rendered by court-appointed counsel. The court found Mother's requested fees were fair and reasonable and allowed the fee applications. The Supreme Court affirmed after clarifying the statutory framework for appealing such orders, holding that there was no abuse of discretion. View "In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees" on Justia Law