Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for incest but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing due to plain error in connection with sentencing.Appellant entered a no contest plea to incest. The district court sentenced Defendant to four to four years’ imprisonment, with credit for eleven days served, and a term of two years’ postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the district court’s incorrect advisement to Appellant regarding the collateral Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) consequence of his plea did not invalidate his plea or warrant the relief of withdrawal; and (2) the district court failed to complete the SORA notification requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4007, which the court was mandated to do in this case, and therefore, the case must be remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Lane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts supporting the majority of his claims and that his remaining claims were without merit.Appellant pled no contest to first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant’s claims were either insufficiently pled or without merit. The court also denied Appellant’s request for appointment of postconviction counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege facts sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claim; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder, manslaughter, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant’s allegations of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that evidence obtained pursuant to an alleged invalid warrant should have been excluded at his jury trial and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Defendant’s first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) there was no merit to any of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "State v. Nolt" on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal is not authorized under Nebraska’s “three strikes” prison litigation statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-3401, which prohibits a prisoner who has previously filed at least three frivolous civil actions from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) without leave of court.In this action alleging civil rights violations relating to Appellant’s treatment by prison officials and the conditions of his confinement, the district court initially sustained Appellant’s motion to proceed IFP. Upon Appellees’ motion to reconsider, the district court vacated the prior order allowing Appellant to proceed IFP pursuant to the “three strikes” provision because Appellant had previously filed three district court cases in which he had been denied IFP status. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Appellant’s interlocutory appeal, holding that neither section 25-3401 nor the general IFP statute statute provides a right to interlocutory appeal of a “three strikes” denial. View "Robinson v. Houston" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s plea in bar to charges of sexual assault of a child.During his criminal trial, Defendant moved for a mistrial based upon the court’s decision to grant the State’s motion to amend the information and a jury instruction after the jury had begun deliberations. The court sustained the motion and declared a mistrial. Thereafter, Defendant filed a plea in bar asserting that a new trial would subject him to double jeopardy because the State created the need for a mistrial. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a new trial because Defendant failed to show that the State provoked him into moving for a mistrial and that double jeopardy did not prevent a new trial. View "State v. Bedolla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and sentencing him to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and fifteen to twenty years’ imprisonment on the possession convictions. The court held that the district court did not err in (1) overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle; (2) overruling Defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude certain testimony; (3) denying Defendant’s motion to strike a statement made by the State in rebuttal closing argument; (4) failing to find that Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (5) overruling Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for directed verdict. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law