Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Angelo Tolbert was convicted of first degree murder, first degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment on each of the other three counts, to be served consecutively. Tolbert appealed, arguing: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the sentences imposed were excessive; and (3) the district court erred in denying his motion for new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Tolbert" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of issuing a bad check. Upon satisfactory completion of the conditions of his probation, the district court entered an order releasing Appellant from probation. Appellant then moved to set aside his conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2264(2). The district court denied Appellant’s motion, concluding that because the conditions of Appellant’s probation included confinement in the county jail, Appellant did not fall within the class of persons whose convictions may be set aside pursuant to section 29-2264(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 29-2264(2) does not preclude relief merely because the person placed on probation was subjected to jail time as a condition of probation. Remanded. View "State v. Kudlacz" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, kidnapping, and first degree sexual assault on a child. Appellant was sentenced to death on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied. Appellant then filed a second postconviction petition and sought relief under the common-law writ of error coram nobis. The district court denied postconviction relief, concluding that Appellant failed to raise any ground for relief not previously available to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s postconviction claims were procedurally barred because they were or could have been litigated on direct appeal or in his previous postconviction petition; and (2) Appellant failed to raise any basis warranting coram nobis relief. View "State v. Hessler" on Justia Law

In 1989, James Dean and Ada JoAnn Taylor (Appellees) were swept into the investigation into the 1985 death of Helen Wilson. Both Appellees ultimately confessed to their involvement in Wilson’s murder after receiving “help” from law enforcement officers to remember the details of the crime. DNA tests later determined that neither Appellee had any involvement in the crime. Appellees subsequently received pardons. In 2010, Appellees brought actions against the State pursuant to the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act. The district court found in favor of Appellees and awarded each of them damages. The State appealed, arguing that Appellees could not recover under the Act because they made false statements in connection with the crime. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to the State’s liability, holding that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the phrase “false statement” or in finding that Appellees did not make false statements under the Act. View "Dean v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of burglary and was found to be a habitual criminal. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of ten to ten years’ imprisonment for each burglary conviction. The district court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part remanded for a determination of whether the sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a term of ten to ten years’ imprisonment for each conviction; but (2) erroneously concluded that it was required to impose consecutive sentences on the two burglary convictions that were enhanced by the habitual criminal statute. View "State v. Berney" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to one count of burglary and was sentenced to six to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant argued that he was entitled to credit for time served of 197 days - four for the current charge and 193 for the time he was incarcerated pending his trial for previous charges of which he was acquitted. The district court gave Defendant credit only for time served of four days. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant was entitled to credit for time served for the 193 days he spent in custody prior to his acquittal in his prior criminal case; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to six to eight years’ imprisonment. View "State v. Carngbe" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging several counts against Defendant. Defendant was subsequently granted an indefinite continuance. The State then filed an amended information against Defendant, charging him with additional crimes. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, contending that he was not brought to trial before the running of the time for trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s denial of the motion for discharge did not violate Defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial or Defendant’s right to due process because Defendant’s indefinite motion for a continuance was not automatically extinguished by the State’s amended information, and thus Defendant was not relieved of his duty to give notice of a request for trial in order to end the continuance and its accompanying statutory waiver of the right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Hettle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession and admitting it into evidence at trial because his confession was the product of threats, coercion, and inducements of leniency made by police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) police officers misrepresented to Defendant that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder, but the misinformation did not overcome Defendant’s will and cause him to confess; and (2) therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted at trial. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and with failing to yield the right-of-way. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result an alleged seizure that he asserted was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The county court overruled the motion, concluding that there was no seizure in this case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the district court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the county court’s order overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. View "State v. Avey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fourth-offense driving under the influence (DUI) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to three years. In addition, Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for fifteen years. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to arrest because his vehicle was on public property not open to public access at all relevant times. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer was justified in approaching the vehicle after observing the driver exit the vehicle and urinate on a tree, which was an unlawful act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in ruling that two prior convictions could be used for sentence enhancement; (4) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Matit" on Justia Law