State v. Pratt

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Pratt

398 N.W.2d 721, 224 Neb. 507, 1987 Neb. LEXIS 766

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 2, 1987

Docket86-608

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 398 N.W.2d 721 (State v. Pratt) 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. Pratt, 398 N.W.2d 721, 224 Neb. 507, 1987 Neb. LEXIS 766 (Neb. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska, wherein Juneal Dale Pratt sought postconviction relief pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 1985). While the assignments of error are couched in terms which purport to raise constitutional issues, in fact Pratt’s sole and only complaint is that the sentences imposed were excessive. The district court denied Pratt’s request for relief without an evidentiary hearing. We agree with the decision of the district court.

These cases, including the sentences, were appealed and affirmed by this court in State v. Pratt, 197 Neb. 382, 249 N.W.2d 495 (1977), and State v. Pratt, 197 Neb. 390, 249 N.W.2d 500 (1977). They are not, therefore, proper subjects for postconviction relief. See State v. Hurlburt, 221 Neb. 364, 377 N.W.2d 108 (1985). A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to secure a further review of issues already litigated. See, State v. Hochstein, 216 Neb. 515, 344 N.W.2d 469 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 873, 105 S. Ct. 226, 83 L. Ed. 2d 156; State v. Weiland, 188 Neb. 626, 198 N.W.2d 327 (1972). The decision of the district court denying postconviction relief is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska, wherein Juneal Dale Pratt sought postconviction relief pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 1985). While the assignments of error are couched in terms which purport to raise constitutional issues, in fact Pratt’s sole and only complaint is that the sentences imposed were excessive. The district court denied Pratt’s request for relief without an evidentiary hearing. We agree with the decision of the district court.

These cases, including the sentences, were appealed and affirmed by this court in State v. Pratt, 197 Neb. 382, 249 N.W.2d 495 (1977), and State v. Pratt, 197 Neb. 390, 249 N.W.2d 500 (1977). They are not, therefore, proper subjects for postconviction relief. See State v. Hurlburt, 221 Neb. 364, 377 N.W.2d 108 (1985). A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to secure a further review of issues already litigated. See, State v. Hochstein, 216 Neb. 515, 344 N.W.2d 469 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 873, 105 S. Ct. 226, 83 L. Ed. 2d 156; State v. Weiland, 188 Neb. 626, 198 N.W.2d 327 (1972). The decision of the district court denying postconviction relief is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 N.W.2d 721, 224 Neb. 507, 1987 Neb. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pratt-neb-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack