State v. Melton

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Staudenmaier

    No. A-20-873 (Neb. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 2021)

    Chapter 29 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes addresses criminal procedures, and it contains no statute authorizing a "motion for new sentencing." See State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021). Where a criminal procedure is not authorized by statute, it is unavailable to a defendant in a criminal proceeding.

  2. State v. Boone

    314 Neb. 622 (Neb. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    These rules apply with particular force to motions filed after sentencing. See, e.g., id. (holding court lacked jurisdiction over postjudgment motion to vacate sentence); State v. Melton , 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021) (holding court lacked jurisdiction over postjudgment motion to modify nonprobationary sentence); State v. Dunster , 270 Neb. 773, 707 N.W.2d 412 (2005) (holding court lacked jurisdiction over postjudgment motion to vacate sentence). Boone does not cite any statutory authorization for his motion to withdraw his pleas after sentencing, nor are we aware of any.

  3. State v. McAleese

    311 Neb. 243 (Neb. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Similarly, we have said that when a collateral attack on a criminal judgment is not raised in a recognized proceeding, the court lacks jurisdiction over the claim. See, State v. Melton , 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021) (holding postjudgment motion to modify nonprobationary sentence is not authorized by criminal procedure statutes and thus is not available in criminal proceeding); State v. Dunster , 270 Neb. 773, 707 N.W.2d 412 (2005) (holding court lacked jurisdiction over postjudgment motion to vacate death sentence because motion not statutorily authorized and same relief could be requested in legislatively authorized procedure such as postconviction motion); State v. Louthan , 257 Neb. 174, 186, 595 N.W.2d 917, 925 (1999) (holding Legislature "has not enacted a procedure for asserting second-tier challenges to prior plea-based [driving under the influence] convictions, and thus, unless such a procedure is constitutionally mandated, it โ€˜is unauthorized and, therefore, unavailable under Nebraska criminal procedureโ€™ "); State v. Miller , 240 Neb. 297, 481 N.W.2d 580 (1992) (holding motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict allowed in civil proceedings, but unauthorized in criminal proceedings

  4. State v. Blake

    310 Neb. 769 (Neb. 2022)   Cited 102 times
    In State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769, 969 N.W.2d 399 (2022), the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to pursue a motion to quash.

    Thus, the question becomes, what does this collection of related statutes require?State v. Melton , 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021).

  5. Kowalewski v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

    310 Neb. 812 (Neb. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Instead, they argue that in addition to the $82 docket fee, the county clerk also had a $100 cash bond on deposit and the clerk should have applied $1 from that bond to the filing fee. Cf., State v. Melton , 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021) ; State v. Jones , 307 Neb. 809, 950 N.W.2d 625 (2020) ; Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha , 305 Neb. 609, 941 N.W.2d 497 (2020). In support of this contention, the Kowalewskis direct us to Stigge v. Graves and In re Application of Olmer ( Olmer ).

  6. State v. Greer

    309 Neb. 667 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 44 times

    In re Estate of Marsh , 145 Neb. 559, 17 N.W.2d 471 (1945).State v. Melton , 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021). See ยง 25-1912(4).

  7. State v. Warlick

    308 Neb. 656 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 18 times

    We apply to a defendant, who was out on bail and has failed without explanation to be present at trial, the fundamental proposition that the burden to produce evidence will rest upon the party who possesses positive and complete knowledge concerning the existence of facts which the other party would otherwise be called upon to negative, or if the evidence to prove a fact is chiefly within the party's control. See State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021). See State v. Pratt , 287 Neb. 455, 842 N.W.2d 800 (2014).

  8. State v. Reames

    308 Neb. 361 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    Paulsen, supra note 2; State v. Thalmann , 302 Neb. 110, 921 N.W.2d 816 (2019). See State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021). Reames, through her trial counsel, filed her notice of appeal on April 17, 2020, which was 31 days after the sentencing order was entered.

  9. State v. Vences

    33 Neb. App. 290 (Neb. Ct. App. 2024)

    A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court's decision. State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021).

  10. State v. Furman

    No. A-23-787 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024)

    An officer is required to have only a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a motorist was driving under the influence in order to expand the scope of the initial stop and detain him or her for field sobriety tests. State v. Lamb, 280 Neb. 738, 789 N.W.2d 918 (2010), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021).