Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

On October 7, the State filed an amended information in Butler County charging Appellant with one count of attempted first degree sexual assault and one count of second-offense violation of a protection order. Appellant was convicted of both offenses. On September 4, an information filed in Platte County charged Appellant with attempted first degree sexual assault. Appellant pled guilty. Appellant subsequently sought habeas corpus relief challenging the Butler County convictions, alleging (1) he was being illegally detained because the amended information was fatally defective, (2) his counsel in the Butler County case was ineffective, and (3) he was innocent of the charges. The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's application to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the legal positions asserted in the petition for writ of habeas corpus which he sought to file were frivolous. View "Peterson v. Houston" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to forty years to life in prison. The conviction was summarily affirmed. After his first petition for postconviction relief was denied, Defendant filed a pro se second verified motion for postconviction relief and request for an evidentiary hearing, asserting that he was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial, to due process of law, and to effective assistance of counsel. More specifically, Defendant argued his constitutional rights were violated because trial counsel advised Defendant not to alert the court concerning his mental health history and failed to inform the court that Defendant was on a mind-altering medication. The district court dismissed Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant appealed the dismissal of his competency issues without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not allege that the competency-related issues he raised in his second motion for postconviction relief were not available previously or could not have been raised either on direct appeal or in his first postconviction proceeding, his claims were procedurally barred. View "State v. Watkins" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for second degree assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and unlawful membership recruitment into an organization or association in violation of Neb. Reb. Stat. 28-1351. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court did not err with respect to numerous evidentiary and other trial rulings and when it rejected Defendant's constitutional challenges to section 28-1351; but (2) vacated Defendant's sentences, holding that the sentencing court plainly erred in ordering the sentence for use of a deadly weapon to be served concurrently with the sentence for unlawful recruitment. Remanded for resentencing so that the sentence for use of a deadly weapon is ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences imposed. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree felony murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming (1) he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct, (2) he was deprived of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) he was deprived of his right to present a complete defense. The trial court dismissed his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to all matters except for the denial of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue impeachment of the State's key witness with his alleged inconsistent statement. Remanded. View "State v. Poe" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the assault and weapon convictions and found that the trial court did not err in failing to give a self-defense instruction, but (2) reversed and remanded for a new trial on the attempted second degree murder conviction, finding the jury should have been instructed on both attempted second degree murder and attempted sudden quarrel manslaughter. Although its reasoning differed in some respects from that of the court of appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not request an instruction on attempted sudden quarrel manslaughter, and because he was charged with a nonhomicide charge, the district court had no duty to instruct on any lesser-included offenses in the absence of such a request, and the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise; but (2) Defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the jury could be instructed on the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to first degree sexual assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment with credit for 224 days served. The two issues presented for review in this appeal were whether Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective and whether Defendant received an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record was insufficient to to review on direct appeal Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and accordingly, the Court declined to address it; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to twenty-five to thirty years' imprisonment for first degree sexual assault. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial at which the jury was instructed on aiding and abetting, Defendant was convicted of robbery, attempted robbery, two counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, and second degree assault. As postconviction relief, Defendant was granted a new direct appeal. The court of appeals subsequently affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) the district court erred when it declared that a witness was unavailable and when it allowed Defendant's deposition testimony to be read into the record, but the error was harmless; and (2) the court of appeals did not err when it determined that the evidence supported the convictions. View "State v. Kitt" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of a class IV felony based on his failure to comply with certain registration provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court subsequently sustained Defendant's motion for rehearing and ordered the case submitted without further oral argument. The Court then withdrew its prior opinion, reversed and vacated Defendant's conviction and sentence, and remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss, holding that Defendant did not commit the offense for which he was charged and convicted because he was not subject to SORA on the date of the alleged offense, and therefore, Defendant had no legal obligation to report his change of address to the sex offender registry. View "State v. Gaskill" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of theft by shoplifting, $200 or less. The district court relied on two prior county court convictions to enhance the crime for punishment as a Class IV felony. In the second of these two prior proceedings, the county court had refused to enhance the conviction and had treated it as a first offense. Defendant argued that the doctrine of collateral estoppel required the district court to treat the instant conviction as only a second offense, and thus, as a Class I misdemeanor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) for enhancement as a third or subsequent offense, the plain language of the relevant statute required only that Defendant have been previously convicted of two instances of theft by shoplifting, whether the earlier convictions were called first offense or second offense; and (2) Defendant's two prior convictions clearly satisfied this requirement. View "State v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and no drug tax stamp. The principle issue on appeal was whether a reasonable person would understand that a general consent to search a vehicle for illegal drugs authorized the opening of a gift-wrapped box in the vehicle's storage area. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the possession of a controlled substance conviction, holding that because (i) the object of the search was clearly disclosed, (ii) the container was not equivalent to a locked container and was not destroyed, and (iii) the consent was not withdrawn after the officer's interest in the container was communicated to its owner, the search did not exceed the scope of the consent; but (2) reversed the no drug tax stamp conviction, holding that the record contained no evidence of the absence of a drug tax stamp. View "State v. Howell" on Justia Law