Russell motion (Nebraska) · Go Syfert
← Nebraska issues

Russell motion in Nebraska

5 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Angeles Ramonita Garciagreen
ca1 · 1983 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015We agree. [11-13] As the Court of Appeals has explained, § 29-2204 plainly provides that in the event of a discrepancy between the statement of the minimum limit of the sentence and the statement of parole eligibility, the statement of the minimum limit controls the calculation of the offender’s term.36 The meaning of a sentence is, as a matter of law, determined by 33 United States v. Garcia, 698 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1983). 34 Brief for appellant at 1. 35 See § 29-2204(1)(b) and (c). 36 See State v. Glover, 3 Neb.

11
State v. Wilengreen
nebctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002NATURE OF ERROR PROCEEDING This appeal is before this court as an error proceeding filed by a county attorney pursuant to § 29-2315.01, which states in pertinent part, “The county attorney may take exception to any ruling or decision of the court made during the prosecution of a cause ....” According to case law, “the purpose of [appellate] review [under this section] ‘is to provide an authoritative exposition of the law for use as a precedent in similar cases which may now be pending or which may subsequently arise.’ ” State v. Wilen, 4 Neb.

11
State v. Carlsongreen
neb · 1988 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992Finally, as to Russell’s claim that he was sentenced disproportionately to those involved in similar cases, “there is no requirement that the [sentencing] court compare the defendant’s case with all other similarly charged . . . felonies prior to imposing sentence.” State v. Carlson, 227 Neb. 503, 507 , 418 N.W.2d 561, 563 (1988).

1992Finally, as to Russell’s claim that he was sentenced disproportionately to those involved in similar cases, “there is no requirement that the [sentencing] court compare the defendant’s case with all other similarly charged . . . felonies prior to imposing sentence.” State v. Carlson, 227 Neb. 503, 507 , 418 N.W.2d 561, 563 (1988).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Russell green
neb · 2016
1 sentence

2016Russell’s motion - 509 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 292 Neb. 501 to continue the trial was overruled.

12016–2016
State v. Glover green
nebctapp · 1995
1 sentence

2015We agree. [11-13] As the Court of Appeals has explained, § 29-2204 plainly provides that in the event of a discrepancy between the statement of the minimum limit of the sentence and the statement of parole eligibility, the statement of the minimum limit controls the calculation of the offender’s term.36 The meaning of a sentence is, as a matter of law, determined by 33 United States v. Garcia, 698 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1983). 34 Brief for appellant at 1. 35 See § 29-2204(1)(b) and (c). 36 See State v. Glover, 3 Neb.

12015–2015
State v. Sorenson green
neb · 1995
2 sentences

1995Due to plain error, we remand this cause to the district court with direction to vacate Russell’s sentence on his conviction of use of a firearm to commit a felony and direct that the district court sentence him on the firearm charge in accordance with § 28-1205(3) and State v. Sorenson, 247 Neb. 567 , 529 N.W.2d 42 (1995).

1995Due to plain error, we remand this cause to the district court with direction to vacate Russell’s sentence on his conviction of use of a firearm to commit a felony and direct that the district court sentence him on the firearm charge in accordance with § 28-1205(3) and State v. Sorenson, 247 Neb. 567 , 529 N.W.2d 42 (1995).

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

NC 24 (2003–2022) TX 16 (1988–2024) OH 13 (2002–2026) CA 13 (1970–2023) AL 12 (1997–2023) MS 12 (1988–2017) WA 10 (1982–2025) GA 9 (1994–2021) MN 6 (1993–2012) IN 5 (1981–2015) NE 5 (1992–2016) IL 5 (1959–2025) NY 4 (2012–2022) MI 4 (1986–2016) KY 3 (1923–2026) SC 3 (1998–2025) MT 3 (2008–2014) MA 3 (1999–2023) PA 2 (1985–2018) FL 2 (1984–2014) OK 2 (1979–1998) MO 2 (1979–2016) AR 2 (2013–2025) IA 2 (2019–2022) WY 2 (2021–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check