Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, robbery, attempted robbery, and four counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s Batson challenge regarding a prospective juror who had been removed by the State using a peremptory strike; (2) any error in sustaining the State’s objection to evidence Defendant wanted to offer to impeach one of the State’s witnesses was harmless; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and newly discovered evidence; and (4) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Lester" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to death on each murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the State had withheld evidence and engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant failed to show that his trial counsel was ineffective or that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ten to twenty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Defendant later filed a motion seeking postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in several ways. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant’s allegations of error were without merit and in thus denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Watson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and of driving under suspension. Defendant was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of ten years’ imprisonment to a maximum of fifteen years’ imprisonment on the possession of a controlled substance conviction and ninety days’ imprisonment for driving under suspension. Defendant appealed, asserting six assignments of error. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction for driving under suspension, holding that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction because there was insufficient evidence to show when Defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all other respects, holding that all of Defendant’s other assignments of error were either without merit or constituted harmless error. View "State v. Rocha" on Justia Law

After Joel Woodward was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) a second time, the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued an order revoking Woodward’s commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life. Woodward did not appeal from the lifetime revocation. Woodward later filed motions asking the sentencing court to set aside both DUI convictions pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2264. The sentencing court set aside both DUI convictions. Woodward’s attorney subsequently wrote a letter to the director of the DMV asking that Woodward’s CDL be reinstated or that he be deemed eligible to reapply for a CDL. The director denied the request in a letter. Woodward filed an appeal pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,105. The district court dismissed Woodward’s petition on several ground, including that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the director’s letter did not constitute a “final decision or order.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the letter from which Woodward appealed was not a “final decision or order” of the director or the DMV under section 60-4,105. View "Woodward v. Lahm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se motion and an amended motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the issues raised in the motions for postconviction relief were known and/or knowable at the time of Appellant’s direct appeal. The court further denied Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel, to proceed in forma pauperis, and for recusal. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that that Appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearings on two of his claims. The Court also directed the district court to grant Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. Appellant was sentenced to life without parole on both counts. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. This appeal concerned Appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. The district court partially granted the successive postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause with directions to overrule Appellant’s second motion for posconviction relief, holding (1) the district court erred in granting postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing; but (2) Appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his claims either because he failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights or because the record showed he was entitled to no relief. Remanded with directions to overrule Appellant’s second motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to attempted possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. The district court sentenced Defendant to two jail sentences, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying him probation based solely on “its erroneous interpretation that his immigration status prohibited probation.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court relied on more than just Defendant’s undocumented status when imposing sentence; (2) the court properly considered probation but found Defendant to be an inappropriate candidate; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to place Defendant on probation for his convictions. View "State v. Cerritos-Valdez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder and other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for each first degree murder. The Supreme Court vacated Appellant’s life sentences under Miller v. Alabama and also vacated his other sentences because the sentencing court committed plain error by ordering some sentences to run concurrently with other sentences. After a hearing, Appellant was resentenced in accordance with established law. Appellant appealed his resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in the sentences it imposed upon Appellant; (2) the aggregate of Appellant’s sentences did not constitute a de facto life sentence, and Appellant received the protections required by Miller for a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense; (3) the district court did not impose an aggregate de facto life sentence; and (4) Appellant’s resentencing was not presumptively vindictive. View "State v. Castaneda" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance and unlawful acts relating to drugs. After a sentencing hearing, the district court found that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation and therefore sentenced her to terms of imprisonment for each conviction to be served concurrent with one another. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court did not follow Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, enacted as part of 2015 Neb. Laws L.B. 605, when it found that Defendant was not a suitable candidate for probation with regard to the possession conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant’s motion to continue sentencing; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that there were substantial and compelling reasons that Defendant could not effectively and safely be supervised in the community on probation. View "State v. Baxter" on Justia Law