Court Opinion

ID: 9374869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 15:06:35.539388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.880472
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/24/2023 09:06 AM CST

                                                           - 587 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        313 Nebraska Reports
                                                  BUTTERCASE V. DAVIS
                                                    Cite as 313 Neb. 587

                                        Joseph J. Buttercase, appellant, v.
                                          James Martin Davis and Davis
                                              Law Office, appellees.
                                                       ___ N.W.2d ___

                                           Filed February 24, 2023.   No. S-20-871.

                                               supplemental opinion
                  Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Darla
               S. Ideus, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehear-
               ing overruled.
                    Joseph J. Buttercase, pro se.
                    Nicholas F. Miller, of Baird Holm, L.L.P., for appellees.
                Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ., and
               Wheelock and Post, District Judges.
                  Per Curiam.
                  This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by
               the appellant, Joseph J. Buttercase, concerning our opinion in
               Buttercase v. Davis, 313 Neb. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022).
                  We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows:
                  In the analysis section, under the subheading “Davis’
               Amended Motion for Summary Judgment,” we withdraw
               the sixth paragraph and substitute the following:
                       His related argument, that he would not have pled
                     guilty but for Davis’ failure to investigate and discover
                             - 588 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  313 Nebraska Reports
                     BUTTERCASE V. DAVIS
                       Cite as 313 Neb. 587

      material exculpatory evidence also fails. When a crimi-
      nal defendant convicted as a result of a guilty or no
      contest plea raises a Sixth Amendment ineffective assist­
      ance of counsel claim, he or she must show that but for
      the errors of counsel, he or she would not have pleaded
      guilty or no contest and would have insisted on going to
      trial. See, State v. Thomas, 311 Neb. 989, 977 N.W.2d
      258 (2022); State v. Privett, 303 Neb. 404, 929 N.W.2d
      505 (2019). But we are aware of no Nebraska authority
      holding that a criminal defendant raising a subsequent
      legal malpractice claim is relieved of demonstrating
      actual innocence if he or she can merely show that but
      for counsel’s errors, he or she would have rejected a plea
      and insisted on going to trial. And, as we have discussed,
      there was no evidence that Buttercase was actually inno-
      cent of the obscenity charge.
   In the analysis section, under the subheading “Davis’
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment,” we withdraw
the first sentence of the seventh paragraph and substitute
the following:
         Buttercase’s arguments that he is actually innocent of
      obscenity because the videos and images are not obscene
      under the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Miller v.
      California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419
      (1973), and that the federal obscenity statute cannot be
      constitutionally applied to him because, although he pled
      guilty to producing and transporting obscene materials for
      distribution, he only possessed and viewed images of his
      private intimate relations with his wife within his home
      are also unavailing.
   In the analysis section, under the subheading “Admission
of Evidence,” we withdraw the fifth sentence of the ninth
paragraph and substitute the following: “Exhibit 14 does
not purport to address Buttercase’s actual innocence of the
                            - 589 -
        Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                 313 Nebraska Reports
                    BUTTERCASE V. DAVIS
                      Cite as 313 Neb. 587

obscenity charge, which is why we find his opposition to
Davis’ motion for summary judgment failed.”
  The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
                       Former opinion modified.
                       Motion for rehearing overruled.
  Heavican, C.J., and Miller‑Lerman, J., not participating.