State v. Dittrich

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Dittrich

390 N.W.2d 527, 223 Neb. 461, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 1106

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 18, 1986

Docket85-805

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 390 N.W.2d 527 (State v. Dittrich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dittrich, 390 N.W.2d 527, 223 Neb. 461, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 1106 (Neb. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

*462 White, J.

This is an appeal by defendant-appellant from an order of the district court for Douglas County denying his amended motion to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence on the charge of murder in the first degree on May 31, 1973. On February 28 and September 19, 1985, hearings were held on defendant’s motion. Testimony was offered orally and by deposition. Defendant’s motion was overruled, and his subsequent motion for new trial was denied. Defendant’s complaint is that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and he assigns as error that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying his postconviction motion.

Appellant has not made the record of the proceedings below available to this court as required by Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 5C(5) (rev. 1983). An assignment of error requiring examination of evidence cannot prevail on appeal in the absence of a proper bill of exceptions. State v. Loschen, 221 Neb. 315, 376 N.W.2d 792 (1985). The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*462 White, J.

This is an appeal by defendant-appellant from an order of the district court for Douglas County denying his amended motion to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence on the charge of murder in the first degree on May 31, 1973. On February 28 and September 19, 1985, hearings were held on defendant’s motion. Testimony was offered orally and by deposition. Defendant’s motion was overruled, and his subsequent motion for new trial was denied. Defendant’s complaint is that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and he assigns as error that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying his postconviction motion.

Appellant has not made the record of the proceedings below available to this court as required by Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 5C(5) (rev. 1983). An assignment of error requiring examination of evidence cannot prevail on appeal in the absence of a proper bill of exceptions. State v. Loschen, 221 Neb. 315, 376 N.W.2d 792 (1985). The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 N.W.2d 527, 223 Neb. 461, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 1106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dittrich-neb-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack