State v. March
| Decision Date | 30 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. A-00-764., No. A-00-445 |
| Citation | 622 N.W.2d 694,9 Neb.App. 907 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellant, v. Byron MARCH, Appellee. State of Nebraska, Appellant, v. Shireen D. Tyma, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Douglas L. Warner, Deputy Scotts Bluff County Attorney, Benjamin S. Shaver, and Brian J. Lockwood, for appellant (case No. A-00-445).
James R. Mowbray and Kelly S. Breen, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, for appellee (case No. A-00-764).
Jack Zitterkopf, Grand Island, for appellant (case No. A-00-764).
Robert Wm. Chapin, Jr., and Charles Maser, of Bradley Maser, Grand Island, for appellee (case No. A-00-445).
These two cases were previously before a single judge of this court under Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Cum.Supp.1998), whereby the State may appeal a suppression order of the trial court to a single judge of this court. See, State v. Tyma, No. A-00-764, 2000 WL 1673125 (Neb.App. Oct. 31, 2000) (); State v. March, No. A-00-445, 2000 WL 1252056 (Neb.App. Sept. 5, 2000) (). A single-judge opinion was issued in each case, reversing the suppression order of the respective district courts involved, Scotts Bluff and Hall Counties. The cases were remanded for further proceedings. Byron March and Shireen D. Tyma have now filed motions for rehearing. While the initial cases were single-judge cases, the question raised now is whether a motion for rehearing is a proper procedure in a single-judge case involving suppression of evidence. We see this as a procedural and jurisdictional matter, which should be addressed by a published opinion of this court. Thus, the motions have been submitted to two different panels of this court, but we only issue this one opinion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules of Practice provide the mechanism and procedure for motions for rehearing, and Neb.Ct.R. of Prac. 1A (rev.2000) specifically provides in part as follows: (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, the question becomes whether a single-judge opinion is an opinion or order of "the court." In State v. Chambers, 242 Neb. 124, 493 N.W.2d 328 (1992), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a single-judge opinion from the Court of Appeals should be designated for permanent publication. The case arose at an earlier time when the statutes provided that only those opinions approved for publication by the Supreme Court would be designated for permanent publication. While that has changed, the court's opinion in Chambers is directly relevant to the question before us.
The Chambers court held that "[a]n opinion of a single judge of the Court of Appeals is obviously not an opinion of the Court of Appeals." (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 125, 493 N.W.2d at 329. The Supreme Court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review a single-judge opinion on a petition for further review, because the statutes governing petitions for further review provide that a party may petition for such review "`after the Court of Appeals has issued its decision in a case....'" (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 126, 493 N.W.2d at 329. In addition, § 29-824 (Cum.Supp.2000), which governs appeals by the State from district court orders granting suppression, specifically provides that "[u]pon conviction after trial the defendant may on appeal challenge the correctness of the order by the [single] judge." In short, if a single judge of the Court of Appeals reverses a suppression order and there is a conviction, the defendant has a right to appeal to a three-judge panel of this court, at which time he or she may reassert...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. March
..."the court," and that therefore, the motion for rehearing was not authorized. The motion for rehearing was stricken. State v. March, 9 Neb.App. 907, 622 N.W.2d 694 (2001). See, also, State v. Chambers, 242 Neb. 124, 493 N.W.2d 328 During the subsequent bench trial, March attempted to raise ......
-
State v. Poppe, No. A-06-475 (Neb. App. 12/12/2006), A-06-475.
...See, State v. Chambers, 242 Neb. 124, 493 N.W.2d 328 (1992); State v. White, 220 Neb. 527, 371 N.W.2d 262 (1985); State v. March, 9 Neb. App. 907, 622 N.W.2d 694 (2001). Nonetheless, we examine the Bailey opinion in some The Bailey opinion began by noting that "a procedural problem relating......
-
State ex rel. NSBA v. Bruckner, S-00-851.
...622 N.W.2d 693261 Neb. 401STATE of Nebraska ex rel. NEBRASKA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Relator, ... Richard J. BRUCKNER, Respondent ... No. S-00-851 ... Supreme Court of Nebraska ... March 9, 2001. HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ ... PER CURIAM ... Richard J. Bruckner, respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on June 23, 1956. On March 24, 1997, a ... ...
-
Appellate Practice in Nebraska: a Thorough, Though Not Exhaustive, Primer in How to Do it and How to Be More Effective
...262, 264 (1985). In addition, a motion for rehearing is improper on such an appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. See State v. March, 9 Neb. App. 907, 907-09, 622 N.W.2d 694, 695-96 (2001). But note that single judge opinions have nonetheless occasionally made their way into the reports ......