State v. Malone (supplemental opinion) , 309 Neb. 399 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    08/20/2021 12:11 AM CDT
    - 399 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. MALONE
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 399
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Kevin W. Malone, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed June 4, 2021.    Nos. S-20-118, S-20-460.
    supplemental opinion
    Appeals from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly
    R. Stratman, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for
    rehearing overruled.
    Richard L. Boucher and Bradley H. Supernaw, of Boucher
    Law Firm, for appellant.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R.
    Vincent for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Per Curiam.
    This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the
    appellant, Kevin W. Malone, concerning our opinion in State
    v. Malone, 
    308 Neb. 929
    , 
    957 N.W.2d 892
     (2021). We find
    no substantive merit to Malone’s motion and overrule it, but
    modify the opinion as follows:
    In the analysis section, under the heading “2. Postconvic­
    tion Relief” and the subheading “(b) Claim of Prosecutorial
    Mis­conduct,” 
    id. at 962,
     957 N.W.2d at 920, we withdraw the
    second paragraph and substitute the following:
    - 400 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    309 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. MALONE
    Cite as 
    309 Neb. 399
    The district court first rejected this argument as pro-
    cedurally barred. However, Malone had amended his
    motion to add an allegation that his appellate counsel had
    been ineffective for failing to raise the claims of pros-
    ecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. The district court
    alternatively rejected Malone’s claim, reasoning that even
    if not procedurally barred, the claim failed to “set forth
    the facts and applicable law to establish an objection
    based on any of these prosecutorial [misconduct] claims
    would . . . have been successful.” We agree.
    The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
    Former opinion modified.
    Motion for rehearing overruled.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-20-118, S-20-460

Citation Numbers: 309 Neb. 399

Filed Date: 6/4/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/20/2021