Nebraska Court of Appeals, unpublished decision, affirms Hall County District Court conviction for child abuse,Class III felony (28-707(5)). Defendant objected to doctor's testimony that referred to the child's foster care because that evidence was cumulative of other evidence and harmless error. State v. Aguirre, A-09-117. Defendant appeals her conviction and sentence on a charge of felony child abuse. On appeal, Defendant asserts that the district court erred in overruling objections to testimony from Dr. Douglas Boon and in imposing an excessive sentence. We find the assertions on appeal to be without merit, and we affirm.

Nebraska Supreme Court denies murder defendant's claim for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective trial and appellate counsel where defendant claimed that counsel's failure to object to reports of Crimestoppers calls about the defendant was because of trial and appellate counsels' errors. State v. Duncan, S-08-1308, 278 Neb. 1006. any failure of Duncan’s trial counsel to object to Henthorn’s testimony was not prejudicial. The evidence supports Duncan’s convictions and renders the court’s erroneous admission of Henthorn’s testimony harmless.Duncan has not assigned that the postconviction court erred in failing to find that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. When claims of a trial counsel’s performance are procedurally barred, we examine claims regarding trial counsel’s performance only if the defendant assigns as error that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel’s performance.

Nebraska Supreme Court denies post-conviction relief to defendant who challenged his conviction of manslaughter and use of a weapon to commit a felony as inconsistent counts. Court rules that the underlying intentional felony was the armed assault that resulted in a manslaughter conviction. State v. Sepulveda, S-08-1291, 278 Neb. 972. the act of firing the gun at Geiger which resulted in Geiger’s death was an intentional and unlawful assault and was the predicate offense of use of a firearm to commit a felony. Intentional assault rather than manslaughter was the predicate felony to use of a firearm to commit a felony; therefore, convictions for both manslaughter and use of a firearm to commit a felony were not inconsistent. Sepulveda’s trial counsel’s failure to raise the issue was not deficient performance and did not result in ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Sepulveda’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel, Sepulveda’s appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to address the issue on appeal.

Nebraska Supreme Court upholds juvenile's confession to a shooting homicide and declines to modify the "totality of circumstances" test for special considerations for juveniles, as the American Bar Association has recommended; also the police officers' characterization of the shooting as an accident did not mislead the defendant into thinking he was confessing to a negligent homicide. State v. Goodwin, S-08-1159, 278 Neb. 945 "While the minority of an accused is a factor to consider in determining the voluntariness of a confession, it is not determinative. Because the age, education, and intelligence of an accused are included within the totality of circumstances (test) of whether there has been a knowing and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights prior to a custodial interrogation, a court necessarily exercises "special caution" with respect to juveniles. Accordingly, we decline to modify the totality of the circumstances test for determining the voluntariness of Miranda waivers by minors we conclude that no implied promise of leniency can reasonably be inferred from the questioning techniques utilized by the detectives. There was no suggestion of any definite benefit which Goodwin could expect to receive in exchange for his statement. The references to lack of intent and a "tragic accident" were made in the context of the detectives’ efforts to persuade Goodwin to truthfully explain his involvement in the shooting. "

Nebraska Supreme Court upholds bench trial conviction for unintentional manslaughter Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-305 (Reissue 2008) while also finding the Defendant guilty of intentional use of a weapon to commit a felony (section 28-1205 RRS Neb). State v. Tucker, S-08-623, 278 Neb. 935 . Defendant was charged with first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. Defendant waived a jury trial. The court found Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter "by unintentionally causing the death of . . . victim while in the commission of an unlawful act. the court explained that the predicate felony to that offense was "assault and/or a terroristic threat. By acquitting Defendant of first and second degree murder, the trial court made the implicit finding that Defendant lacked the specific intent to kill and that he also lacked the specific intent to commit any of the listed felonies for felony murder. By finding Defendant guilty of unintentional manslaughter, the court found that Defendant did not intend to kill victim, but that he did kill victim during the intentional commission of an unlawful act. based on the predicate offense of intentional assault, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment that Defendant was guilty of use of a weapon to commit a felony

Nebraska Supreme Court upholds Internet enticement law and rejects defendant's challenge to Section § 28-320.02 RRS Neb. on equal protection, free speech, over breadth and vagueness grounds. State v. Rung, S-08-878, 278 Neb. 855 "Defendant appeals his conviction for use of a computer to entice a child or a peace officer believed to be a child for sexual purposes, a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-320.02 (Reissue 2008). Defendant challenges the constitutionality of § 28-320.02 and asserts that his sentence is excessive. We reject Defendant’s constitutional challenges, and we affirm his conviction and sentence. Defendant asserts no suspect classification and because the statute does not jeopardize a fundamental right, the classification in § 28-320.02 is subject to a rational basis review for equal protection purposes. When a classification created by state action does not jeopardize the exercise of a fundamental right or categorize because of an inherently suspect characteristic, the Equal Protection Clause requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest.§ 28-320.02, is geared toward enticement of minors to engage in sexual conduct that would violate specified statutes, and as such, § 28-320.02 does not jeopardize the fundamental right recognized in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003). Defendant argued that § 28-320.02 is over broad because it targets speech regarding acts that would not otherwise be illegal. This argument, similar to his other arguments, is based on his misreading of the statute. Defendant lacks standing to challenge § 28-320.02 for vagueness

Case overruled: Nebraska Supreme Court allows Defendant facing retrial after a trial court ordered a deadlocked jury mistrial to file a plea in bar motion to contest whether double jeopardy would bar the retrial. Although the court should have had counsel and the defendant present while declaring the mistrial, the error was harmless. State v. Rubio, 261 Neb. 475, 623 N.W.2d 659 (2001) is overruled to the extent it suggests the plea in bar procedure is not available to challenge a mistrial. State v. Williams, S-08-1220, 278 Neb. 841 A mistrial entered without manifest necessity is the equivalent of an acquittal for purposes of double jeopardy analysis in that each terminates jeopardy without a finding of guilt. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 660, 97 S. Ct. 2034, 52 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1977). a plea in bar pursuant to § 29-1817 may be filed to assert any nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim arising from a prior prosecution, including a claim that jeopardy was terminated by entry of a mistrial without manifest necessity. To the extent that language in State v. Rubio, 261 Neb. 475, 623 N.W.2d 659 (2001). is inconsistent with this holding, it is disapproved. We conclude that although the judge erred in not having the parties and counsel present during his colloquy with the jury regarding its inability to reach a verdict, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the mistrial. Accordingly, jeopardy did not terminate and retrial is not barred by principles of double jeopardy.

Nebraska Supreme Court affirms robbery conviction from Gage County; denies defendant's appeal to allow testimony of other inmates that another suspect committed the robberies; denies appeal on prosecutors closing arguments; denies appeal on other crimes evidence; denies appeal on evidence of prior convictions.State v. Epp, S-08-331, 278 Neb. 683Miller-Lerman-J."William A. Epp appeals his convictions and sentences for robbery and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. Epp was found to be a habitual criminal and was sentenced to imprisonment for 60 to 60 years on each of the two convictions, with the sentences ordered to be served consecutively. We affirm Epp’s convictions and sentences."Whether or not the district court erred in refusing to admit the portions of Mick’s testimony at issue, the guilty verdict rendered against Epp was surely unattributable to such error. The court refused portions of Mick’s testimony in which he denied that he committed the Wymore Casey’s robbery and denied that he told Blessing and Forney that he committed a robbery. Such testimony did not support, and instead refuted, Epp’s defense that it was Mick and not Epp who committed the robbery. Epp presented other evidence raising the possibility that Mick rather than Epp robbed the Wymore Casey’s. The jury apparently rejected such evidence.

Nebraska Supreme Court denies relief to defendant serving prison term for attempted second degree murder who requested that his guilty plea be set aside because he alleged the sentencing court's warning to him of the possible immigration consequences of his plea was insufficient. State v. Yos-Chiguil, S-08-1329, 278 Neb. 591 . "The (court's) failure to give the required advisement and the occurrence of an immigration consequence of which the defendant was not advised which triggers the statutory remedy in § 29-1819.02(2). The district court had jurisdiction to consider Yos-Chiguil’s motion to vacate his conviction, and this court has appellate jurisdiction to determine whether the district court erred in overruling the motion. § 29-1819.02(2) requires that in addition to showing that the advisement required by § 29-1819.02(1) was not given or was incomplete, a defendant seeking to vacate a plea-based conviction must also show that such conviction "may have the consequences for the defendant of removal from the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States." Failure to give all or part of the advisement required by § 29-1819.02(1) regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty or nolo contendere plea is not alone sufficient to entitle a convicted defendant to have the conviction vacated and the plea withdrawn pursuant to § 29-1819.02(2). The defendant must also allege and show that he or she actually faces an immigration consequence which was not included in the advisement givenYos-Chiguil did not allege an essential fact necessary to trigger the remedy provided by § 29-1819.02(2), the district court did not err in denying the relief sought without an evidentiary hearing ."

Petition for further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court sustained in No. S-08-959: State v. Simnick, 17 Neb. App. 766 (2009). Petition of appellant for further review sustained on September 16, 2009 {the finding that Defendant committed an aggravated offense for the purpose of lifetime community supervision should have been submitted to a jury, but the error was harmless }.

Nebraska Supreme Court allows sentencing court to correct mistaken calculation of time served after sentencing. State v. Clark, S-08-735, 278 Neb. 557 The Lancaster County District Court judge gave an defendant more credit for time served than he actually served and the court attempted to correct the sentence for Class I misdemeanor sexual assault by noting the appropriate amount of credit. On May 19, 2008, the district court attempted to sentence defendant to 360 days in jail but incorrectly credited Defendant with 361 days’ time served. On June 12, the court entered a written sentencing order granting Defendant credit for 61 days’ time served, the amount of time actually served and reflected by the record. Defendant appealed, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted Defendant’s petition for further review. For different reasons, we affirm. A sentencing court must under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 47-503 (Reissue 2004), separately determine, state, and grant credit for time served, and must the court must set form those times as a part of the sentence, State v. Torres, 256 Neb. 380, 590 N.W.2d 184 (1999). The judge was without discretion to award Defendant more credit for time served than he actually served. Accordingly the district court had authority to correct the erroneous portion of its sentencing pronouncement by giving Defendant the accurate amount of credit for time served as reflected by the record.

Why are the members of the Nebraska Pardons Board having to take countless pardon applications for minor crimes? Simple, the Nebraska Supreme Court said so. Journalstar.com See also State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260, 543 N.W.2d 154 (1996).

Nebraska Constitution » IV-13

Board of parole; members; powers; reprieves; proceedings; power to pardon; limitations "The Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State, sitting as a board, shall have power to remit fines and forfeitures and to grant respites, reprieves, pardons, or commutations in all cases of conviction for offenses against the laws of the state, except treason and cases of impeachment. The Board of Parole may advise the Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State on the merits of any application for remission, respite, reprieve, pardon or commutation but such advice shall not be binding on them."

Defendant convicted of murder in "Boys Don't Cry" case loses appeal from post-conviction proceedings in which he requested new trial based on co-defendant's perjury at trial. State v. Lotter, S-08-449 through S-08-451, 278 Neb. 466. Defendant was too late in brining to motion for new trial based on Nissen's perjury; fear of the death sentence is not enough to show prosecutorial coercion. Unlike postconviction relief, relief under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2103 (Reissue 2008) {motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence} is not strictly limited to constitutional claims. A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to obtain, outside of the 3-year time limitation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2103 (Reissue 2008), what is essentially a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which the defendant was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears. Even if a defendant has not actually killed a victim, substantial participation in the felony Constitutional Law: Criminal Law: Witnesses: Death Penalty. A witness’ testimony is not the result of unconstitutional coercion simply because it is motivated by a legitimate fear of a death sentence

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms without comment Nebraska convict's civil rights complaint against requiring him to register as a sex offender for pandering a minor. 081629U.pdf 08/21/2009 Richard Hansen v. John Doe U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 08-1629 District of Nebraska - Lincoln [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Chief Judge, and Hansen and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - civil rights. Order dismissing suit claiming issuance of a citation for violation of SORNA's (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4001-14.) reporting requirements violated plaintiff's civil rights affirmed without comment.

Nebraska Supreme Court, Miller-Lerman, Justice affirms Lancaster County District Court conviction of felony murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony from the shooting death in an armed robbery of a marijuana dealer. State v. Banks, S-07-670, 278 Neb. 342. Defendant broke into the victims home to rob him of cash and a marijuana stash. Defendant shot the victim twice in the chest as he was getting away in his friends car. Nebraska Supreme Court affirms District Court's refusal to allow an alternative premediated first degree murder instruction along with the court's felony murder instruction. The district court's refusal to allow the jury to consider lesser included homicide offenses and acquittal on robbery the Supreme Court also affirms. Defendant also loses his appeal on jury selection, venue, witnesses cross examination and the state's late amendment of the weapons charge from a Class III felony to a firearms Class II felony. We conclude that Banks has not established reversible error from the court’s refusal to instruct on premeditated murder and the lesser-included offenses of second degree murder and manslaughter. In this case, Banks was convicted of first degree murder based on sufficient evidence. Banks has shown no prejudice from the refusal to instruct on premeditated murder, because such instruction would have simply given the jury an additional theory under which to convict Banks of first degree murder. Banks also has not shown that he was prejudiced by the failure to instruct on premeditated murder with its corresponding lesser-included offenses, because the evidence did not produce a rational basis to acquit him of first degree murder under a felony murder theory but convict him of second degree murder or manslaughter. The district court therefore did not violate Banks’ right to due process and did not otherwise prejudicially err when it refused to give the instructions requested by Banks

Nebraska Supreme Court affirms misdemeanor assault conviction and 100 day sentence when victim did not testify except through the county court's receiving into evidence her 911 recorded call. State v. Thompson, S-08-1134, 278 Neb. 320 District Court on appeal ruled tape was inadmissible hearsay but admitting the tape was harmless error. Defendant did not raise a confrontation objections. an appellant must show that the trial court actually made a factual determination, or otherwise resolved a factual issue or question, through the use of erroneously admitted evidence in a case tried without a jury. State v. Harms, 264 Neb. 654, 650 N.W.2d 481 (2002) (supplemental opinion). The appellant must show that the trial court made a finding of guilt based exclusively on the erroneously admitted evidence. State v. Lara, 258 996, 607 W.2d 487 (2000). If there is other sufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt, the conviction will not be reversed. Id. The burden rests on the appellant in a bench trial because of the presumption that the trial court, sitting as the fact finder, disregards inadmissible evidence. State v. Harms, supra. We conclude there was other sufficient evidence to support the finding of guilt.

Defendant convicted of sex crime who was not in custody, probation or parole could not challenge requirement he register as a sex offender through post-conviction proceedings. State v. York, S-08-884, 278 Neb. 306 Defendant claims that this requirement renders him "in custody under sentence" such that he should be permitted to seek relief under the Nebraska Postconviction Act. See § 29-3001. We conclude that an individual who is subject to the registration requirements under the SORA (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001 et seq. (Reissue 2008)) is not "in custody under sentence" for purposes of the Nebraska Postconviction Act. See § 29-3001.

Nebraska Supreme Court overrules claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel for allegedly not pointing out errors to pro se defendant previous trial counsel had committed. Further no ineffectiveness of appellate counsel for raising trial counsel ineffectiveness on appeal because appellate counsel if different from trial counsel must raise it on direct appeal if issues are apparent on record. State v. Dunster, S-08-227, 278 Neb. 268 Dunster argues that direct appeal counsel was ineffective in raising, on direct appeal, the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. But direct appeal counsel’s performance was not deficient in that regard.

No ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel on appeal fails to challenge earlier requirement that second degree murder required malice instruction nor that second degree murder law section 28-304 is unconstitutional because it lacks a malice requirement. State v. Thomas, S-08-1177, 278 Neb. 248

Overruled ineffective counsel motion affirmed in Nebraska Supreme Court against defendant convicted of smothering his girlfriends child, intentional child abuse resulting in death. Counsel's failure to redact defendant's confession that referred to other injuries from abuse was harmless and not ineffective counsel, appellate counsel also not ineffective. State v. Jim, S-08-953, 278 Neb. 238