State v. Wiley

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Wiley

Additional Case Names
@ 1:25pm
Case Number
Court Number
Call Date
January 12, 2021
Case Time
1:00 PM
Case Summary

A-20-110, State v. Wiley (Appellant)

Lancaster County, District Court Judge Kevin R. McManaman

Attorney for Appellant:  Matthew Kosmicki

Attorney for Appellee:  Douglas J. Peterson, Jordan Osborne (Attorney General’s Office)

Criminal Action:  Third Degree Domestic Assault – Subsequent Offense, Negligent Child Abuse

Action Taken by Trial Court:  Following a jury trial, the Appellant was convicted of third degree domestic assault and negligent child abuse. During the initial sentencing hearing, the district court failed to hold an enhancement hearing on the domestic assault conviction and sentenced the appellant as if the offense had already been enhanced. Later that same day, the court realized its error, vacated the sentence as void, and held an enhancement hearing finding that the third degree domestic assault conviction was a subsequent offense. The court then sentenced the Appellant to the same sentence that it had previously imposed.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  The Appellant contends that: (1) the district court erred by holding an enhancement hearing after vacating its initial sentence; (2) the sentence imposed was excessive; and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in: (a) failing to object to the State’s motion in limine regarding specific acts of violence by the victim of the domestic assault; (b) failing to present the justification of self-defense; (c) failing to ensure that the Appellant was dressed in street clothing and not in restraints for the trial; (d) failing to call as witnesses a neighbor, the domestic abuse victim’s best friend, and the lead investigating officer to test the veracity of other State witnesses; (e) failing to emphasize to the jury the inconsistent dates of the offense as testified to by witnesses; (f) failing to present evidence that the domestic abuse victim was a confidential informant for the Lincoln Police Department and involved in the sale of prescription pills to show motive for the investigator to falsify a report; (g) in advising the Appellant not to testify in his defense; (h) in failing to object to the trial court allowing the State to reopen its case to establish enhancements after the initial sentence had been pronounced; (i) in failing to communicate with the Appellant and being unprepared for trial.

Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Schedule Code
Panel Text
Riedmann, Bishop, and Welch, Judges