State v. Smith

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Smith

196 N.W.2d 918, 188 Neb. 388, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 824

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedApril 27, 1972

Docket38269

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 196 N.W.2d 918 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 196 N.W.2d 918, 188 Neb. 388, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 824 (Neb. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Spencer, J.

This is a post conviction action to vacate and set aside defendant’s sentence and conviction for first degree murder. Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court appointed counsel, *389 granted defendant a hearing, and decided the case on its merits.

This, however, is a second motion for post conviction relief on behalf of the defendant. In State v. Reichel, 187 Neb. 464, 191 N. W. 2d 826, we held: “After a first motion for post conviction relief has been judicially determined, any subsequent motion for post conviction relief from the same conviction and sentence may be dismissed by the district court, unless the motion affirmatively shows on its face that the basis relied upon for relief was not available at the time of filing a prior motion for post conviction relief.” We see no reason to depart from that holding in this case.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Spencer, J.

This is a post conviction action to vacate and set aside defendant’s sentence and conviction for first degree murder. Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court appointed counsel, *389 granted defendant a hearing, and decided the case on its merits.

This, however, is a second motion for post conviction relief on behalf of the defendant. In State v. Reichel, 187 Neb. 464, 191 N. W. 2d 826, we held: “After a first motion for post conviction relief has been judicially determined, any subsequent motion for post conviction relief from the same conviction and sentence may be dismissed by the district court, unless the motion affirmatively shows on its face that the basis relied upon for relief was not available at the time of filing a prior motion for post conviction relief.” We see no reason to depart from that holding in this case.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.W.2d 918, 188 Neb. 388, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-neb-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack