Opinion ID: 4016036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: In 2014, the State filed two informations against Carr. In case No. S-15-921, the State charged Carr with robbery and use of a firearm to commit a felony for events occurring on September 11, 2014 (the robbery case). In case No. S-15-922, the State charged Carr with first degree murder, attempted robbery, possession of a stolen firearm, and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony (the homicide case). The State - 187 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CARR Cite as 294 Neb. 185 alleged that the homicide case arose from the robbery and death of Maurice Williams on August 30, 2014. Carr and the State reached a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to the robbery charge in the robbery case, and in exchange, the State dismissed the use of a firearm charge. In the homicide case, Carr pleaded no contest to an amended information charging him with attempted robbery, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and manslaughter. Before accepting Carr’s pleas, the court received a factual basis for the charges. For the robbery case, the prosecutor stated: [O]n Thursday, September 11th, 2014 at approximately 2:00 a.m., three male individuals contacted the residents of an apartment [on] Huntington Avenue, Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska, at the front door. The three individuals said they were looking for a place to “cool out.” After a short period of time, one of the three individuals pulled out a black semi-automatic handgun and asked where the marijuana was. As one individual pointed a gun at and threatened the individuals in the apartment . . . the other two searched the apartment and collected [cash and personal property]. A person who was in the apartment during the robbery identified the three male individuals responsible as . . . Carr, Micheal [sic] Nevels and Jomarcus Scott. [Later], law enforcement contacted . . . Carr and . . . Scott and they located a . . . handgun during the search of . . . Scott. . . . Scott admitted to the robbery at [the apartment on] Huntington with . . . Carr and . . . Nevels. The State gave the following factual basis for the charges in the amended information in the homicide case: [O]n Saturday, August 30th, 2014 at approximately 1:03 a.m., Lincoln police officers were sent to [an apartment on] “R” Street, . . . Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska. [Persons] reported that . . . Williams had been shot. Law - 188 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CARR Cite as 294 Neb. 185 enforcement and emergency personnel found . . . Williams lying on the floor inside the residence. He was found to have sustained a single gunshot wound. He was transported to Bryan LGH West Hospital and soon thereafter pronounced dead. The cause of death was determined to be from the single gunshot wound. . . . Carr was identified as a suspect when a witness reported to law enforcement that . . . Carr had stated he shot . . . Williams with a rifle during a robbery attempt. A rifle . . . was sent to the Nebraska state laboratory, along with a bullet recovered from [the apartment on] “R” Street, and the items were found to be a ballis- tic match. The laboratory located a fingerprint on the rifle that matched . . . Carr’s left middle finger. Law enforcement located a photograph on social media as well as on . . . Carr’s phone depicting . . . Carr holding the rifle. Several individuals agreed to law enforcement interviews after August 30th, 2014. From these interviews, law enforcement learned that . . . Carr and three others planned to rob . . . Williams of marijuana and money. They rode together in a vehicle to [the apartment on] “R” Street. Once there, one of the four made the secure residence accessible, and . . . Carr and another went into the residence. . . . Carr had the rifle and held . . . Williams . . . at gunpoint while the other person looked for money in the bedroom. . . . Williams was heard to say to . . . Carr that they “weren’t going to do him like that.” As Williams attempted to walk past . . . Carr and toward the bedroom, the rifle discharged and a bullet struck . . . Williams, fatally injuring him. . . . Carr and the other person then quickly left the residence, got into an awaiting vehicle occupied by the two others involved in the planning of the robbery and left the area. - 189 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CARR Cite as 294 Neb. 185 During driving away from the scene, . . . Carr was reported to have said he thought he shot him. In the days after the shooting, . . . Carr told others that he had in fact shot . . . Williams during a robbery attempt and that he would take responsibility for it. Approximately one week after the shooting, . . . Carr gave the rifle to a friend on the promise of $100. The friend placed the rifle in a closet at a St. Paul residence, where it was located by law enforcement . . . . A few days before the sentencing hearing, Carr moved for a continuance. His attorney said that the State had informed her that “new potentially exculpatory information had surfaced from a previously unknown confidential inform­ ant.” Carr’s attorney said she needed more time to locate and depose the informant. The court continued the sentencing hearing. A few days before the rescheduled sentencing hearing, Carr moved to withdraw his pleas in both cases because of newly discovered evidence. At the hearing on his motion to withdraw, Carr offered the deposition of Traeshawn Davis, the previously unknown witness. Davis testified about two statements: one made by Jomarcus Scott and another by Carr. Davis said that in September 2014, Scott asked him for a ride “out of town.” Davis testified that Scott had “blood on his T-shirt and his basketball shorts.” He asked what had happened, and Scott told him “‘we fucked up, we fucked up, we fucked up, he’s dead.’” Davis asked who was dead, and Scott said “‘Mo.’” According to the affidavit of Carr’s attorney, Davis knew Williams as “Mo.” Davis was “pretty certain” his conversation with Scott occurred in September 2014. Davis remembered having a welfare appointment for his son around September 16 and stated, “I was already saying, you know, it’s like not even two weeks away that we got to go for his [son’s welfare] appointment.” Davis denied that his conversation with Scott could have occurred in August. - 190 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CARR Cite as 294 Neb. 185 Davis also testified about an interaction he had with Carr. In July 2015, law enforcement arrested Davis on an unrelated matter and placed him in the same “Pod” of the county jail as Scott. Davis and Scott quarreled, so Davis moved to a different pod, which happened to hold Carr. After Davis told his pod mates why he had moved, Carr shared with him paperwork related to the shooting of Williams so Davis could “see everything that [Scott] said.” Later, Davis said that he, Carr, and other inmates were playing cards when an inmate commented that Williams’ death was “messed up.” Carr replied, according to Davis, “‘honestly, you know, it is what it is. I just wish it wouldn’t have happened like that, but I wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger first.’” At the hearing on Carr’s motion to withdraw his pleas, the court also received an affidavit signed by his attorney. Carr’s attorney stated that “[t]he State’s case in both prosecutions is based primarily on cooperating witnesses, none of which [sic] indicated that . . . Scott was involved in [Williams’] homicide.” Carr’s attorney also questioned the veracity of Davis’ testimony about the statement Carr made while playing cards in jail. She averred that she had spoken with another inmate who was in the same “grouping” as Carr at the county jail. The inmate could not recall Carr’s making the statement attributed to him by Davis. To the contrary, the inmate said that Carr had “always maintained his innocence.” For example, when another inmate suggested that Carr had killed Williams, Carr responded, “‘Man, did I ever say I did it?’” Carr’s attorney further stated that the security manager at the jail told her that Davis and Carr were not released from their cells at the same time, but that Davis could have eavesdropped on Carr’s conversations from a nearby cell. The court overruled Carr’s motion to withdraw his guilty and no contest pleas. It stated that Davis’ testimony bore little relation to the charges in the robbery case. As for the homicide case, Carr’s purported jailhouse statement tended to inculpate - 191 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 294 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CARR Cite as 294 Neb. 185 him. The court noted that the record lacked the statements of the “cooperating witnesses” whom Carr argued he might impeach with Scott’s alleged statement to Davis. Furthermore, the court found that Davis “insisted” that his conversation with Scott occurred “some days” after Williams’ homicide. Even if none of the witnesses placed Scott at the scene of the shooting, the court reasoned that Scott’s statement did not exculpate Carr, because the “question is not whether Scott was present, but rather, whether Carr was present.” After the court sentenced Carr, he appealed in both cases. We sustained his motion to consolidate the appeals and then granted his petition to bypass the Nebraska Court of Appeals. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Carr assigns that the court erred by (1) overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty and no contest pleas because of newly discovered evidence and (2) overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty and no contest pleas because he did not enter them freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly.