Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

After a bench trial on stipulated facts, Defendant was found guilty of refusal of a chemical test in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197. Defendant appealed, arguing, primarily, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the traffic stop was conducted without reasonable suspicion and that section 6-6,197.09 and related statutes are unconstitutional because they are void for vagueness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) section 60-6,197.09 is not unconstitutionally vague; and (3) Defendant was not denied due process when he was denied probation. View "State v. Arizola" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for eighty years to life. Defendant appealed, assigning numerous errors addressed to the grand jury process and trial rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not commit prejudicial error when it (1) overruled Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause; (2) overruled Defendant’s motion to quash the indictment due to errors relating to the special prosecutor; (3) overruled Defendant’s motion in limine to prohibit the State from presenting evidence regarding DNA testing of certain evidence; and (4) overruled Defendant’s motions for mistrial. View "State v. Chauncey" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant was sixteen years old when he committed the crimes leading to his convictions. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. In 2013, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief seeking resentencing on his murder conviction pursuant to Miller v. Alabama. The district court granted postconviction relief. After a resentencing hearing, Appellant was sentenced to ninety to ninety years’ imprisonment on the first degree murder conviction. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits and supported by the record, and there was no merit to Appellant’s claim that his sentence was excessive. View "State v. Garza" on Justia Law

In 1994, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time of the commission of the acts leading to his convictions. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief. The motion was granted and Defendant’s life sentence was vacated and the cause remanded. Upon resentencing, Defendant was sentenced to ninety years’ to ninety years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sentence imposed upon Defendant on resentencing was not erroneous; and (2) the sentencing court properly considered Defendant’s youth and used adequate procedural safeguards when sentencing him. View "State v. Mantich" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction on direct appeal. In 2009, Defendant filed a motion under the DNA Testing Act for retesting of biological material related to Defendant’s prosecution. After a hearing, the district court overruled the 2009 motion for DNA testing. Defendant’s appeal from that order was summarily dismissed by the court of appeals. In 2015, Defendant filed another motion for DNA testing under the Act. The State objected to the motion on the ground of res judicata. The district court dismissed the DNA motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s successive motion for DNA testing on the ground that it was governed by the determinations made under the 2009 motion. View "State v. Marrs" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a statute underlying a judgment is permitted in a habeas corpus proceeding after the judgment becomes final. In 2011, Petitioner was convicted of unlawful discharge of a firearm under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1212.04 and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Petitioner was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each conviction, to run consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner later filed a habeas petition in district court making a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 28-1212.04. The district court dismissed Defendant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when used to challenge a final conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is a collateral attack; (2) therefore, habeas corpus is not a proper remedy to challenge a petitioner’s detention pursuant to a final conviction and sentence on the basis that the statute underlying the conviction is unconstitutional; and (3) therefore, a final conviction and sentence entered upon an allegedly facially unconstitutional statute is not absolutely void, but is voidable only, and may not be attacked in a habeas corpus proceeding. View "Sanders v. Frakes" on Justia Law