Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

264 Neb. 166

State v. Roe

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 2002

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 2002-06-28

Applies NE 29 § 29-2264

Relies on State v. Spady · State v. Leanna

Decided 2002-06-28

Wright, J.

¶1This appeal arises from an order granting a petition to set aside a conviction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2264 (Cum. Supp. 2000). The Lancaster County District Court granted the petition, finding that § 29-2264 does not violate Neb. Const, art. II, § 1. The State appeals.

¶2John M. Roe filed a petition to set aside his conviction on May 30, 2000, at which time he had completed all terms and conditions of probation related to a 1989 conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance. The State filed an answer raising the issue of the constitutionality of § 29-2264. At the hearing on Roe’s petition, the State argued that § 29-2264 “is an unconstitutional delegation of the executive pardon power to the judiciary.” The district court found the State’s argument to be without merit and issued an order setting aside Roe’s conviction.

¶3The issues raised in this appeal are identical to those in State v. Spady, ante p. 99, 645 N.W.2d 539 (2002), and State v. Leanna, ante p. 114, 646 N.W.2d 263 (2002). In Spady, we concluded that § 29-2264 is constitutional and is not in violation of article II, § 1. For the reasons set forth in Spady, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

¶4Affirmed.

/264/neb/166 · .json · Public domain