Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft by deception in the amount of $500 to $1500 pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred in failing to inform him that he had a right to a presentence investigation and that, therefore, his waiver of his statutory right to a presentence investigation was not made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under a review of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant was informed of his right to a presentence investigation, was questioned as to whether he had been threatened or promised anything for his decision to waive this right, and was expressly asked if his waiver was made freely and voluntarily; and (2) therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. View "State v. Qualls" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of failure to affix a drug tax stamp. Appellant appealed, arguing that probable cause did not exist to stop his vehicle and that consent to search the vehicle was not properly given because of the illegal stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the conviction and sentences for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, as (i) the law enforcement officer properly stopped Appellant for violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,142, and (ii) because at the conclusion of the lawful stop, the officer asked if he could search Appellant's car and Appellant gave consent, there was no violation of Appellant's rights, and the evidence was properly admitted at trial; but (2) reversed Defendant's conviction and sentences for failing to affix a drug tax stamp, as the record contained no evidence regarding the absence of drug tax stamps. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for failure to affix a tax stamp. View "State v. Magallanes" on Justia Law

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