Legal Opinion
State v. Castaneda
Nebraska Supreme Court
Decided February 7, 2014No. S-11-023PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. CASTANEDA 289 Cite as
287 Neb. 289
defendant’s prior conviction may be used for purposes of sen- tence enhancement. Thus, although our reasoning differs somewhat from that of the district court, we agree with its conclusion that collateral estoppel did not bar the use of Bruckner’s 1999 and 2001 DUI convictions as two of the three prior convictions necessary to enhance his 2012 conviction to fourth offense. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Affirmed. Wright, J., participating on briefs. State of Nebraska,…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Solem v. HelmSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Graham v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. AllenNebraska Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. HenryNebraska Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. HendersonNebraska Supreme Court · 2014
- Carter, Bowie, McCullough v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2018
- State v. CardeilhacNebraska Supreme Court · 2016
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.