Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant, who was born in Zaire and immigrated to the United States after being granted asylum, pled no contest to two misdemeanors in 2010. Because of credit for time served, Defendant was released from custody on the same day he was sentenced. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming his defense counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not properly advise Defendant of the immigration consequences of conviction at the time he entered the pleas. The district court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because Defendant had completed his sentences and had been released from custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction to decide Defendant's common-law motion to withdraw his pleas because (1) the statutory remedy under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02 did not apply and the motion asserted a constitutional issue which was not addressed under the Nebraska Postconviction Act; and (2) the fact that Defendant served his sentences was not relevant to the jurisdictional analysis. Remanded. View "State v. Yuma" on Justia Law

Defendant obtained controlled substances pursuant to prescriptions written for chronic pain issues but did not inform her medical providers that she was being prescribed similar medications elsewhere. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of ten counts of acquiring a controlled substance by fraud. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that she should not be charged with multiple counts based on multiple prescriptions from the same doctor because the fraudulent act was the singular failure to disclose to the other medical providers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of Defendant's pharmacy records did not violate her constitutional or statutory rights; (2) the trial court did not err in concluding that Defendant committed multiple violations of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-418 each time she obtained and filled a prescription by her treating family physician; and (3) probable cause supported the warrant for Defendant's medical records. View "State v. Wiedeman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. Defendant appealed, challenging the district court's step instruction to the jury regarding second degree murder and manslaughter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court plainly erred in giving the instruction, as (1) although the instruction was correct when it was given, the Court's subsequent holding in State v. Smith rendered the instruction an incorrect statement of the law; (2) Smith applied retroactively to this case; and (3) there was evidence upon which a jury could conclude that the killing was intentional but provoked by a sudden quarrel and therefore constituted manslaughter. View "State v. Trice" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of third degree sexual assault and admitting a minor to an obscene motion picture, show, or presentation. The district court affirmed the convictions. The court of appeals affirmed the sexual assault conviction but reversed the obscenity-related count. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for third degree sexual assault, and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in (1) affirming Defendant's conviction for third degree sexual assault; and (2) indicating that the ineffective assistance claim could not be reached on direct appeal on the existing record. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant's sentence on the firearm conviction was twice vacated and the cause remanded to correct the amount of credit for time served. Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant's motion did not allege facts constituting a denial of constitutional rights, and, as to certain allegations, the record refuted his claims. View "State v. Marks" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to sixty years to life imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his counsel was deficient for not informing him about potentially exculpatory information disclosed at an in-chambers conference. The district court denied the motion, concluding that even if trial counsel's performance had been deficient, Defendant would still have accepted the plea agreement, and thus suffered no prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to disclose to Defendant exculpatory evidence relevant to his plea. View "State v. Keyser" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to the unauthorized use of a financial transaction device with a value between $500 and $1,500. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated when private counsel was prohibited from entering a limited appearance in Defendant's case, as Defendant was found to be indigent, Defendant was represented throughout the proceedings, and at no point throughout her proceedings did Defendant waive her right to her appointed public defender or report to the court that her appointed counsel was incompetent; (2) Defendant failed to establish that her trial counsel was deficient; and (3) the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant on the same day it accepted her plea. View "State v. Dixon" on Justia Law

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