S-21-768 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Tyeric L. Lessley (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Marlon A. Polk
Attorneys: Tyeric L. Lessley (Self-Represented Litigant and Appellant) and Erin E. Tangeman (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee)
Criminal: First-Degree Murder, Use of a Weapon to Commit a Felony, First-Degree Assault, Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person, and Post-Conviction Relief
Proceedings Below: After previously being convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony, Appellant filed a Motion for Post-Conviction Relief, which the district court overruled. This matter is before the Nebraska Supreme Court as it hears all cases in which the sentence is life in prison.
Issue: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) the district court erred when it rejected Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denied his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing; 2) the district court erred and abused its discretion in denying Appellant's request for appointment of counsel without a hearing; 3) the district court erred in determining that Appellant’s claims are without merit and are procedurally barred; 4) the district court erred in determining Appellant was procedurally barred in his claim that certain jury instructions given at trial were reversible error; 5) the district court erred in failing to suppress evidence derived from an unlawful search warrant and supporting affidavit; 6) the district court erred in failing to find that the State’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors of a specific racial class violated his rights to due process and equal protection of the law; 7) the district court abused its discretion by supporting a verdict based on evidence that is insufficient to support a conviction of Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for First Degree (felony) Murder; and 8) the district court erred and abused its discretion when denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without allowing the State to respond to Appellant’s complaint without affording a proper evidentiary hearing on the merits.