Brown motion in Nebraska

2018See, also, State v. Pierce, 173 Vt. 151 , 787 A.2d 1284 (2001) (applying Brown factors pre- Lidster ); In re Muhammad F., 94 N.Y.2d 136 , 722 N.E.2d 45 , 700 N.Y.S.2d 77 (1999) (same).

2018See, also, State v. Pierce, 173 Vt. 151 , 787 A.2d 1284 (2001) (applying Brown factors pre- Lidster ); In re Muhammad F., 94 N.Y.2d 136 , 722 N.E.2d 45 , 700 N.Y.S.2d 77 (1999) (same).

2022Although Brown asserts that the delay in receiving notice of the court’s dismissal of his postconviction motion was due to his counsel’s negligence as opposed to negligence of the court or prison officials, State v. Parnell, supra, and State v. Jones, supra, instruct that Brown’s motion to reconsider was not untimely and should not have been dismissed as such. - 661 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 30 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. BROWN Cite as 30 Neb.

2022ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns, restated, that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) relying on Parnell and Jones to conclude that Brown’s motion for reconsideration was not untimely and (2) remanding 9 See State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 , 917 N.W.2d 850 (2018). 10 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 11 State v. Jones, supra note 2 . 12 State v. Brown, supra note 1 , 30 Neb.

2021We conclude that the court did not err when it overruled Brown’s motion for discharge based on the alleged violation of his federal and Nebraska constitutional rights to a speedy trial. - 242 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BROWN Cite as 310 Neb. 224 CONCLUSION We conclude that neither Brown’s statutory nor his federal or state constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.

2021We conclude that the court did not err when it overruled Brown’s motion for discharge based on the alleged violation of his federal and Nebraska constitutional rights to a speedy trial. - 242 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BROWN Cite as 310 Neb. 224 CONCLUSION We conclude that neither Brown’s statutory nor his federal or state constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.

2019While it is not clear to us what evidence Brown could have offered to negate the applicability of Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), under these circumstances, Brown cannot point us to any such evidence, nor can he claim that he lacked the opportunity to present it to the district court.

2019While it is not clear to us what evidence Brown could have offered to negate the applicability of Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987), under these circumstances, Brown cannot point us to any such evidence, nor can he claim that he lacked the opportunity to present it to the district court.

2024All the more, Brown precisely assigned that his counsel’s failure to “properly investigate and ques- tion the lead witness” pertained to the witness’ bias related to “a civil lawsuit filed by Menards against [Brown],” which, 43 Id.

2023We are not dissuaded from our conclusion that Brown’s claim is covered by the weather conditions exemption even after considering two cases of this court upon which Brown relies: Woollen v. State, 256 Neb. 865 , 593 N.W.2d 729 (1999), abrogated on other grounds, A.W. v. Lancaster Cty.

2023We are not dissuaded from our conclusion that Brown’s claim is covered by the weather conditions exemption even after considering two cases of this court upon which Brown relies: Woollen v. State, 256 Neb. 865 , 593 N.W.2d 729 (1999), abrogated on other grounds, A.W. v. Lancaster Cty.

2022ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns, restated, that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) relying on Parnell and Jones to conclude that Brown’s motion for reconsideration was not untimely and (2) remanding 9 See State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 , 917 N.W.2d 850 (2018). 10 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 11 State v. Jones, supra note 2 . 12 State v. Brown, supra note 1 , 30 Neb.

2022Brown does not identify the witnesses that counsel should have investigated See, State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2022) (it is sufficient that appellate counsel give on direct appeal names or descriptions of any uncalled witnesses forming bases of claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel); State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014) (claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call “at least two” witnesses who would have been “beneficial” to defendant’s case was insufficiently pled).

2022BROWN Cite as 312 Neb. 654 the matter, because the district court could not legally vacate and reinstate the order dismissing Brown’s motion for postcon- viction relief.

2022It stated that Brown’s claim for actual innocence was “an attempt to relitigate issues decided at trial,” that his ineffective assist­ ance of trial counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress had “no basis” in light of the jury instructions, and that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to challenge the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act 6 had no legal basis. 2 See, State v. Jones, 307 Neb. 809 , 950 N.W.2d 625 (2020); State v. Parnell, 301 Neb. 774 , 919 N.W.2d 900 (2018). 3 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 4 State v. Jones, supra n

2022It stated that Brown’s claim for actual innocence was “an attempt to relitigate issues decided at trial,” that his ineffective assist­ ance of trial counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress had “no basis” in light of the jury instructions, and that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to challenge the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act 6 had no legal basis. 2 See, State v. Jones, 307 Neb. 809 , 950 N.W.2d 625 (2020); State v. Parnell, 301 Neb. 774 , 919 N.W.2d 900 (2018). 3 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 4 State v. Jones, supra n

2022ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns, restated, that the Court of Appeals erred in (1) relying on Parnell and Jones to conclude that Brown’s motion for reconsideration was not untimely and (2) remanding 9 See State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 , 917 N.W.2d 850 (2018). 10 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 11 State v. Jones, supra note 2 . 12 State v. Brown, supra note 1 , 30 Neb.

2022It stated that Brown’s claim for actual innocence was “an attempt to relitigate issues decided at trial,” that his ineffective assist­ ance of trial counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress had “no basis” in light of the jury instructions, and that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to challenge the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act 6 had no legal basis. 2 See, State v. Jones, 307 Neb. 809 , 950 N.W.2d 625 (2020); State v. Parnell, 301 Neb. 774 , 919 N.W.2d 900 (2018). 3 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 4 State v. Jones, supra n

2022It stated that Brown’s claim for actual innocence was “an attempt to relitigate issues decided at trial,” that his ineffective assist­ ance of trial counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress had “no basis” in light of the jury instructions, and that his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to challenge the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act 6 had no legal basis. 2 See, State v. Jones, 307 Neb. 809 , 950 N.W.2d 625 (2020); State v. Parnell, 301 Neb. 774 , 919 N.W.2d 900 (2018). 3 State v. Parnell, supra note 2 . 4 State v. Jones, supra n

2022Brown does not identify the witnesses that counsel should have investigated See, State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2022) (it is sufficient that appellate counsel give on direct appeal names or descriptions of any uncalled witnesses forming bases of claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel); State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014) (claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call “at least two” witnesses who would have been “beneficial” to defendant’s case was insufficiently pled).

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no gen­uine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate infer- ences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 [2-4] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by these rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 2 The exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in d

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no gen­uine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate infer- ences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 [2-4] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by these rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 2 The exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in d

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and the evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no gen­uine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate infer- ences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 [2-4] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by these rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 2 The exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in d

2021Affirmed. 13 See State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 , 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 14 See, State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708 , 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021); State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 , 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 15 Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, ante p. 184, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2021Affirmed. 13 See State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 , 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 14 See, State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708 , 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021); State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 , 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 15 Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, ante p. 184, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2021Affirmed. 13 See State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 , 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 14 See, State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708 , 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021); State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 , 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 15 Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, ante p. 184, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2021Affirmed. 13 See State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 , 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 14 See, State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708 , 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021); State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 , 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 15 Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, ante p. 184, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2021ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Morello assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1) granting Brown’s motion for summary judgment, (2) excluding paragraph 5 of Morello’s affidavit on the grounds of hearsay - 972 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports BROWN v. MORELLO Cite as 308 Neb. 968 and relevance, and (3) excluding paragraph 6 of Morello’s ­affidavit on the grounds of speculation and relevance.

2021ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Morello assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1) granting Brown’s motion for summary judgment, (2) excluding paragraph 5 of Morello’s affidavit on the grounds of hearsay - 972 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports BROWN v. MORELLO Cite as 308 Neb. 968 and relevance, and (3) excluding paragraph 6 of Morello’s ­affidavit on the grounds of speculation and relevance.

2021Affirmed. 13 See State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 , 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 14 See, State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708 , 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021); State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 , 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 15 Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, ante p. 184, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2021Affirmed. 13 See State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 , 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021). 14 See, State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708 , 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021); State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 , 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 15 Preserve the Sandhills v. Cherry County, ante p. 184, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2021).

2021Instead, Curtis prepared a handwritten affidavit, dated March 9, 2020, that she delivered to the public defender’s office. - 324 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BROWN Cite as 310 Neb. 318 District Court’s Order Denying Motion The district court denied Brown’s motion for new trial.

2020We thus confine our analysis to the disputed ele- ments of the recreational activity exception: whether Brown’s claim relates to a recreational activity and whether his claim resulted from an inherent risk of that activity. (a) Threshold Question [8] Because the recreational activity exception in § 81-8,219(14)(a)(i) applies only to tort claims “relating to recreational activities” on state property and “resulting from the inherent risk of the recreational activity,” it is necessary 22 In re Application No. OP-0003, 303 Neb. 872 , 932 N.W.2d 653 (2019). 23 Amend, supra note 4 . 24 Id. - 119 -

2020We thus confine our analysis to the disputed ele- ments of the recreational activity exception: whether Brown’s claim relates to a recreational activity and whether his claim resulted from an inherent risk of that activity. (a) Threshold Question [8] Because the recreational activity exception in § 81-8,219(14)(a)(i) applies only to tort claims “relating to recreational activities” on state property and “resulting from the inherent risk of the recreational activity,” it is necessary 22 In re Application No. OP-0003, 303 Neb. 872 , 932 N.W.2d 653 (2019). 23 Amend, supra note 4 . 24 Id. - 119 -

2020We thus confine our analysis to the disputed ele- ments of the recreational activity exception: whether Brown’s claim relates to a recreational activity and whether his claim resulted from an inherent risk of that activity. (a) Threshold Question [8] Because the recreational activity exception in § 81-8,219(14)(a)(i) applies only to tort claims “relating to recreational activities” on state property and “resulting from the inherent risk of the recreational activity,” it is necessary 22 In re Application No. OP-0003, 303 Neb. 872 , 932 N.W.2d 653 (2019). 23 Amend, supra note 4 . 24 Id. - 119 -

2018See, also, State v. Pierce, 173 Vt. 151 , 787 A.2d 1284 (2001) (applying Brown factors pre-Lidster); In re Muhammad F., 94 N.Y.2d 136 , 722 N.E.2d 45 , 700 N.Y.S.2d 77 (1999) (same). 28 Brewer, supra note 6 . 29 Id. at 679 . 30 Id. at 678 . 31 Id. at 679 . - 40 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SIEVERS Cite as 300 Neb. 26 This case presents a seizure that is less intrusive than a tra- ditional arrest.

2018The definition of “[p]rior conviction” under § 60-6,197.02(1)(a)(i)(C) includes a conviction in another state when “the offense for which the person was convicted would have been a violation of” § 60-6,196 or one of the other - 64 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BROWN Cite as 300 Neb. 57 enumerated Nebraska DUI-related statutes.

2017Cite as 297 Neb. 541 intervene to protect whatever interest it may have in some or part of this real estate.” Thereafter, the State filed what it captioned “Defendant- Interven[o]r’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,” in which it aligned with Jacobsen in defending against Brown’s claim of adverse possession.

2017Cite as 297 Neb. 541 The State timely appealed, and we moved the case to our docket on our own motion pursuant to our statutory authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts of this state.4 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns, renumbered and restated, that the district court erred in (1) determining that the lis pendens operated to make the State a subsequent purchaser or, in the alternative, refusing to cancel the lis pendens; (2) determining that the State had a sufficient interest to intervene in the action, but did not have a sufficient interest to resist Brown’s claim of

2017The court acknowledged Brown’s argument that the lis pendens statute prevented the State from acquiring any legal interest in the disputed property while the action was pending, but concluded “the State should be permitted to 3 See, generally, DeBoer v. Oakbrook Home Assn., 218 Neb. 813 , 359 N.W.2d 768 (1984). - 545 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports BROWN v. JACOBSEN LAND & CATTLE CO.

2017The court acknowledged Brown’s argument that the lis pendens statute prevented the State from acquiring any legal interest in the disputed property while the action was pending, but concluded “the State should be permitted to 3 See, generally, DeBoer v. Oakbrook Home Assn., 218 Neb. 813 , 359 N.W.2d 768 (1984). - 545 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports BROWN v. JACOBSEN LAND & CATTLE CO.