S-22-0185, State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Leandre R. Jennings, III (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Kimberly Miller Pankonin
Attorneys: Leandre R. Jennings, III (self-represented litigant) and Austin N. Relph (Assistant Attorney General for Appellee).
Criminal: First Degree Murder, Use of a Firearm to Commit a Felony; Use of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person; and Postconviction Relief.
Proceedings Below: Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment for life, thirty (30) to forty (40) years, and forty (40) to forty-five (45) years, respectively. Appellant later sought Postconviction Relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied. Life imprisonment cases are automatic and direct appeals to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues: On appeal, Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The trial court committed reversible error when it denied Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief without an evidentiary hearing and admitted into evidence buccal swabs, swabbed for potential biological DNA material, from a piece of bread located at the crime scene, later destroyed hours into the investigation, in violation of the appellant’s due process, abusing its discretion; 2) The trial court committed reversible error, abusing its discretion, in denying Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief without an evidentiary hearing and admitting into evidence false statements within an affidavit that produced fruit of a poisonous tree; 3) The trial court committed reversible error, abusing its discretion, by overruling Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief without an evidentiary hearing and admitting into evidence Appellant’s trial and appeal counsel’s failure to investigate claims; 4) The trial court committed reversible error, abusing its discretion, when it overruled Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief by allowing Appellant’s Defense Counsel to render ineffective assistance of trial and appeal counsel in failing to object to a jury instruction; 5) The trial court committed reversible error, abusing its discretion, when it overruled Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief by allowing Appellant’s Defense Counsel to render ineffective assistance of trial and appeal counsel for failing to object to testimony by an Omaha Police Officer; 6) The trial court committed reversible error, abusing its discretion, when it overruled Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief by allowing several errors relating to the trial court and of prosecutorial misconduct procedurally barring those unresolvable issues because of Appellant’s trial and appellant counsel’s failure to raise on direct appeal; and 7) The trial court committed reversible error, abusing its discretion, when it overruled Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief without allowing Appellant the chance to reply to the State’s reply brief to the Motion for Postconviction Relief.