Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault. Throughout the criminal proceedings, Defendant was represented by a Nebraska attorney (Attorney) whose license had been suspended for nonpayment of dues. After learning Attorney's license was suspended but before Attorney was disbarred, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion after (1) declining to apply a per se rule, reasoning that Attorney was qualified when admitted and was suspended solely for nonpayment of dues; and (2) finding Defendant's specific claims were either affirmatively disproved by the record or constituted mere conclusions. The Supreme Court affirmed after declining to adopt a per se determination of ineffectiveness based on the fact that Attorney was suspended for nonpayment of dues at the time he represented Defendant, holding that Defendant failed to establish Attorney provided ineffective assistance based on specific aspects of Attorney's actual performance. View "State v. Vanderpool" on Justia Law

The State filed a complaint against Defendant charging him with third degree assault, to which Defendant pled no contest. Before sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that he had not received the complaint twenty-four hours before being asked to plead in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1802. The county court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 29-1802 applies to prosecutions by indictment or information and not complaints in county court; and (2) therefore, the county court's failure to comply with the statute was not a fair and just reason for Defendant to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Schanaman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the disappearance of nine-year-old Jill Cutshall. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. In 1992, The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging that he had recently learned of the existence of newly discovered evidence - a diary in which was detailed the abduction, rape and murder of Cutshall. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in finding that Defendant's motion was procedurally barred because his motion affirmatively showed on its face that the ground for relief could not have been asserted at the time of the prior postconviction proceedings; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant did not allege facts sufficient to necessitate an evidentiary hearing; and (3) because Defendant raised no justiciable issue of law or fact, the district court did not err in declining to appoint counsel. View "State v. Phelps" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present alibi evidence in the form of a witness's testimony. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to present the witness's alibi testimony; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. Remanded. View "State v. Branch" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to a charge of fraudulently obtaining public assistance benefits and was sentenced to five years' probation. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw her plea, alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her counsel had not told her that her conviction would result in automatic deportation. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that her counsel's deficient performance prejudiced her. The Supreme Court affirmed. After the State's motion for rehearing was granted, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chaidez v. U.S., which held that the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky requiring defense counsel to advise clients of the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea, did not apply retroactively to a defendant whose conviction became final before Padilla was decided. Based on Chaidez, the Supreme Court withdrew its previous opinion, substituted this opinion, and dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Defendant's motion where Defendant's sole remedy was to file for postconviction relief pursuant to the Nebraska Postconviction Act. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Without permission and in violation of school policy, a high school student retrieved a wallet and sweatshirt from his pickup truck, which was parked on a public street across from the school. When the student returned to school grounds, the assistant principal searched the student's person, backpack, and wallet, only to discover a cellular telephone and a set of keys. Without the student's consent, the assistant principal then searched the student's truck and found drug paraphernalia. The student was suspended for nineteen days. The school board upheld the suspension. The district court reversed the decision of the board and ordered the suspension and offenses expunged from the student's school record, holding that the search of the truck violated the Fourth Amendment, as the assistant principal lacked probable cause to expand the search to the truck. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search of the student's truck violated the student's right to be free from unreasonable searches. View "J.P. v. Millard Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to distribute. The jury found the quantity of the mixture containing cocaine was 10.25 grams. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of a scale used to weigh the cocaine in order to admit evidence of the weight. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it admitted testimony regarding the weight of the cocaine without sufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of the scale, and the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer pulled over Defendant's vehicle because it momentarily crossed over the divider line between two eastbound lines on an interstate. Because of suspicions he developed while issuing a warning ticket for the alleged traffic violation, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered cocaine in the trunk. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court overruled. The court subsequently convicted Defendant as charged. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) evidence that Defendant's vehicle momentarily crossed a lane divider line, without more, did not establish a statutory violation and thereby provide probable cause for a traffic stop; and (2) because the officer admitted that this "happens all the time" and failed to distinguish how this case differed from normal behavior, there was not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to support an investigatory stop. Remanded. View "State v. Au" on Justia Law

Appellant sued Doctor for medical malpractice. After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Doctor. During trial, the court permitted Doctor to question one of Appellant's treating physicians about his opinion of Doctor's performance in treating Appellant for hip pain even though neither party had designated the treating physician as an expert. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted the disputed testimony about the standard of care but that the error was harmless because the parties' designated experts provided similar evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's ruling denied Appellant any opportunity to challenge the presumptive validity and weight that a jury would have given to Appellant's own treating physician testifying as an expert against him; and (2) therefore, the error was prejudicial. Remanded for a new trial. View "Simon v. Drake" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a resident of Nebraska. In 1963, Plaintiff received a copy of the book "Revolutionary Road," which was inscribed to her by the late author Richard Yates. Plaintiff's inscribed copy of the book was later stolen. Ken Lopez and his company, Ken Lopez Bookseller (KLB), bought the book in 2009 from a seller in Georgia and sold it to a customer not in Nebraska. Plaintiff later learned that Lopez had used the inscription in the book for advertising purposes on his website. Plaintiff brought suit against Lopez and KLB for violating her right to privacy. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's complaint failed to plead facts to demonstrate that Lopez and KLB had sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Nebraska, as (1) the contacts created by the website were unrelated to Plaintiff's cause of action, and (2) under the Calder v. Jones foreseeable effects test, the pleadings failed to establish that Lopez and KLB expressly aimed their tortious conduct at the state of Nebraska. View "Abdouch v. Lopez" on Justia Law