Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the county court overruling Kaitlyn Coble’s motion to seal the record of her citation for two misdemeanors that were subsequently dismissed and the order of the district court affirming the county court.On appeal, Coble argued that the district court erred by affirming the county court’s order overruling her motion to seal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the appeal, holding that the county court lacked jurisdiction to consider Coble’s motion because the motion was not authorized by statute. As a result, the district court and this Court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the county court’s order. View "State v. Coble" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant’s assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by not admitting photographs he claimed supported his defense that another individual committed the murders and that his collective sentence of ninety to 140 years’ imprisonment was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photographs by reasoning that the small amount of relevance was outweighed by Neb. Evid. R. 403; and (2) Defendant, who was a juvenile at the time the crimes were committed, received the protections required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant’s assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by not admitting photographs he claimed supported his defense that another individual committed the murders and that his collective sentence of ninety to 140 years’ imprisonment was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photographs by reasoning that the small amount of relevance was outweighed by Neb. Evid. R. 403; and (2) Defendant, who was a juvenile at the time the crimes were committed, received the protections required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court terminating Defendant’s post-release supervision “unsatisfactorily,” holding that the district court erred in terminating post-release supervision.After finding that Defendant had violated his post-release supervision, the district court decided that it was not appropriate to revoke the supervision and so terminated the post-release supervision altogether. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court was authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2268(3) to either order a reprimand or warning, intensify supervision or reporting, impose additional conditions of probation, impose custodial sanctions, or extend the term of probation; and (2) because the district court did none of these, the sentencing order was erroneous and resulted in an excessively lenient sentence. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the postconviction court denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief asserting twelve acts of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (2) Defendant’s claims of sentencing error did not warrant an evidentiary hearing; and (3) because Appellant’s postconviction motion presented no justiciable issues for postconviction relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the postconviction court denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief asserting twelve acts of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. On appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (2) Defendant’s claims of sentencing error did not warrant an evidentiary hearing; and (3) because Appellant’s postconviction motion presented no justiciable issues for postconviction relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Haynes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence imposed on his conviction for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and affirmed his convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.After a jury found Defendant guilty, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the murder count. On the second count, the court initially imposed a consecutive prison sentence of fifty to fifty years but, after a sidebar conference requested by defense counsel, reduced the term to twenty to twenty years. The Supreme Court held (1) as to Defendant’s assignments of error, any error was harmless; and (2) there was plain error in the sentence imposed on the second count because the trial court’s initial sentence was validly imposed and took effect as soon as it was pronounced, and therefore, the court’s subsequent reduction of the term of imprisonment was a nullity. View "State v. Kidder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence imposed on his conviction for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and affirmed his convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.After a jury found Defendant guilty, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the murder count. On the second count, the court initially imposed a consecutive prison sentence of fifty to fifty years but, after a sidebar conference requested by defense counsel, reduced the term to twenty to twenty years. The Supreme Court held (1) as to Defendant’s assignments of error, any error was harmless; and (2) there was plain error in the sentence imposed on the second count because the trial court’s initial sentence was validly imposed and took effect as soon as it was pronounced, and therefore, the court’s subsequent reduction of the term of imprisonment was a nullity. View "State v. Kidder" on Justia Law