Opinion ID: 3150895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Carter was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in 1986. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder and 10 years’ imprisonment for the firearm conviction. The circumstances that led to Carter’s convictions and sentences may be found in State v. Carter.2 We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal in 1987.3 Carter has made numerous unsuccessful attempts to collaterally attack his convictions. Before the motion which is the subject of our first appeal, Carter filed four other motions for postconviction relief—in 1989, 2002, 2008, and 2012. The Douglas County District Court denied relief in each case, and 1 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02(1) (Reissue 2008). 2 State v. Carter, 226 Neb. 636, 413 N.W.2d 901 (1987). 3 Id. - 18 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CARTER Cite as 292 Neb. 16 in each case, we affirmed the district court’s order on appeal. He has also attempted to collaterally attack his convictions by means of a motion for new trial and a petition for writ of error coram nobis. We summarize the timeline of the most recent proceedings as follows: • May 28, 2014: Carter files a “Motion for Successive Postconviction Relief.” • November 18, 2014: The district court overrules the motion without an evidentiary hearing. • December 4, 2014: Carter files a notice of appeal from the November 18 order. The appeal is docketed in this court as case No. S-14-1089 (first appeal). In lieu of the statutory docket fee, Carter files an application to proceed IFP on appeal. • December 23, 2014: On its own motion, the district court denies Carter’s application to proceed IFP on appeal, after concluding that Carter’s underlying postconviction motion is frivolous. • January 8, 2015: Carter files a notice of appeal from the December 23, 2014, order. The appeal is docketed in this court as case No. S-15-024 (second appeal). This notice of appeal was also accompanied by an application to proceed IFP. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR In the first appeal, Carter assigns, restated, that the district court erred in denying (1) his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and (2) his motion requesting appointment of counsel and application for IFP status. In the second appeal, Carter assigns, restated, that the district court erred in denying his application to proceed IFP on appeal.