Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences for driving under the influence (DUI), possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, and careless driving, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.After a bench trial, the county court adjudged Defendant guilty of DUI, possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, and careless driving. The district court affirmed, concluding that no abuse of discretion or error was shown in the record and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's DUI conviction. View "State v. Buol" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified Defendant's convictions for two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the record was insufficient to address certain claims, and there was otherwise no merit to his arguments on direct appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no plain error in the admission of evidence regarding a prior shooting; (2) there was no plain error in the prosecution's remarks; (3) the record was insufficient to address several of Defendant's numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and there was no merit to Defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (4) the sentencing order must be modified to reflect a sentence of life imprisonment for each of Defendant's convictions for first degree murder. View "State v. Mabior" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for disqualification and his criminal sentences imposed in connection with no contest pleas to four felony charges in relation to a law enforcement officer-involved shooting, holding that Appellant identified no error requiring reversal.After the information against him was filed and the matter was assigned to the district court Appellant timely filed a motion to disqualify the trial judge, arguing that the reasonable person viewing the circumstances would question the court's impartiality. The trial court overruled the motion. Appellant later pleaded no contest to four felony charges, and the court sentenced him to consecutive terms of incarceration for a total of ninety-six to 116 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion for disqualification and did not abuse its discretion in fashioning an appropriate sentence. View "State v. Ezell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions and sentences on four felony charges after a jury trial during which Defendant raised a defense of not responsible by reason of insanity, holding that there was plain error in the jury instructions, requiring reversal.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, second degree assault on an officer, first degree attempted assault on an officer, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and sentenced to not less than fifty-seven nor more than seventy-nine years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions and remanded the case, holding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2203(4) does not affect this Court's precedent regarding settled insanity; and (2) the jury was not properly instructed as to settled insanity, and the jury instructions prejudicially affected Defendant's substantial rights, requiring reversal. View "State v. Brennauer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court upholding the decision of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeals Board (Appeals Board) upholding the decision of the Institutional Disciplinary Committee (IDC) to sanction Appellant for drug use while in prison, holding that there was no plain error.Appellant, an inmate incarcerated under the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS), was issued a misconduct charge for "Drug or Intoxicant Abuse" in violation of an NDCS rule. After a hearing, the IDC found that Appellant had violated the rule. The Appeals Board upheld the decision, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit plain error in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the IDC's finding that Appellant violated the rule at issue. View "Haynes v. Neb. Dep't of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convincing Defendant of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence to sufficient to support the jury's verdicts; (2) there was no juror misconduct during deliberations when jurors allegedly discussed the reputation of the victim's family members and their potentially seeking revenge; (3) the trial court did not err by finding the averment of a juror about the disputed juror statements inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-606(2) and finding that the exception for "extraneous prejudicial information" did not apply to the juror's testimony; and (4) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court imposing both imprisonment and post-release supervision in a criminal case, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal.Appellant pleaded no contest to a Class IIIA felony and a Class I misdemeanor. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and to one year of post-release supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any alleged error regarding Appellant's purported failure to be advised of the conditions of her post-release supervision did not prejudicially affect Appellant's substantial rights; (2) the district court did not impose excessive sentences; and (3) Appellant's last assignment of error was moot. View "State v. Applehans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to criminal charges against him after he was sentenced but before the time to file a direct appeal had expired, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and use of a weapon to commit a felony. After sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas on, among others, the grounds that his prior counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to enter into the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant did not show that withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not have the authority to allow Defendant to withdraw his pleas. View "State v. Boone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer.Defendant, who was charged with first-degree sexual assault, requested that the district court transfer his case to juvenile court, asserting that he was under the age of eighteen at the time of the alleged offense. After a hearing, the district court overruled the motion to transfer, finding that the State had met its burden to show that a sound basis existed for retaining jurisdiction of this matter in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this case was not moot; and (2) the district court properly exercised its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. View "State v. Aldana Cardenas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to determine the merits and correctly rejected the petition on its merits.Appellant, who was incarcerated at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that, under the relevant statutes, he had reached his mandatory discharge date, and seeking absolute discharge and release from custody. The district court denied a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition, concluding that it was deprived of jurisdiction in the present matter but, even if it had jurisdiction, the petition failed on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition; and (2) did not err when it determined that Appellant's claim for habeas corpus relief was without merit. View "Schaeffer v. Gable" on Justia Law