S-17-0073, State v. Michael A. Nolt (Appellant)
District Court of Douglas County, Honorable Timothy P. Burns
Attorneys: Nathan A. Liss (Attorney General’s Office) – Michael J. Wilson (Schaefer Shapiro, LLP) (Appellant)
Criminal: 1st degree murder; use of deadly weapon to commit felony, 2 counts; manslaughter; possession of deadly weapon by prohibited person
Proceedings below: Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues: 1) The district court committed reversible error when it permitted the State to introduce evidence derived from the warrant for OnStar for Appellant's Global Positioning System data even though an officer with decades of experience with warrants testified that he placed the warrant in a drawer and did not return it to the issuing court until nine months later, 2) trial counsel provided prejudicial ineffective assistance when they failed to object to Officer
Corey Gordon's testimony as to Tommynique Valentine's alleged out-of-court description of the shooter because this portion of Gordon's testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay, 3) trial counsel provided prejudicial ineffective assistance when they failed to object to
Detective Derek Mois' testimony as to Judith Nolt-Goff's alleged out-of-court report that Appellant made fraudulent charges to her credit card for hotel rooms and rental cars because this portion of Mois' testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay 4) trial counsel provided prejudicial ineffective assistance when they failed to file a motion to suppress the in-court identification of Appellant by Valentine because, immediately following the photo lineup procedure, an officer tainted Valentine's subsequent in-court identification by telling Valentine that she picked the photograph of the suspect arrested by law enforcement, 5) Appellant received prejudicial ineffective assistance when trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present several aspects of Appellant's defense, 6) Appellant’s convictions and sentences should be reversed and he should be granted a new trial because the cumulative effect of the ineffective assistance provided by trial counsel deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial.