State v. Wyrick

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Wyrick

Case Number
Court Number
Call Date
February 14, 2023
Case Time
9:00 AM
Case Summary

A-22-0176, State of Nebraska v. Roy Wyrick (appellant)

Lancaster County, District Judge Susan I. Strong

Attorney for Appellant:  Matthew F. Meyerle, Deputy Public Defender (Lancaster County Public Defender)

Attorney for Appellee:  Nathan A. Liss, Assistant Attorney General (Nebraska Attorney General’s Office)

Criminal Action:  Motion to Suppress, Motion in Limine, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sufficiency of the Evidence, Excessive Sentence

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The district court overruled Appellant’s motion to suppress, granted the State’s motion in limine, found Appellant guilty of Second Degree Murder and Use of a Deadly Weapon to Commit a Felony, and imposed a sentence of 22 to 30 year’s imprisonment for Count I and 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment for Count II.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Appellant assigns that the district court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress and granted the State’s motion in limine. Appellant assigns that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when trial counsel failed to: call the Appellant and a doctor to testify at the motion to suppress hearing; adequately preserve the issue of the victim’s intoxication by making an offer of proof; adequately advise Appellant regarding plea negotiations by failing to notify Appellant of the State’s plea offer for Manslaughter and failing to adequately advise him of the State’s Second Degree Assault plea offer; call four named witnesses; adequately cross-examine an investigator who was a State’s witness; object to an investigator’s testimony regarding a BB gun found in an apartment; seek a limiting instruction regarding Exhibit 34 and failing to object to the State elicited testimony about Exhibit 34 from a witness; properly preserve Appellant’s motion to suppress; strike two jurors; and object to the scheduling of the trial during late December due to the prejudicial effect of the Christmas holiday in the trial process. Appellant also assigns that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty of Second Degree Murder, insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find him guilty of Use of a Deadly Weapon to Commit a Felony, and that the sentences imposed by the district court are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion.

Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Schedule Code
Panel Text
Pirtle, Chief Judge, Riedmann and Arterburn, Judges