Judgments: Appeal and Error. The
construction of a mandate issued by an appellate court
presents a question of law on which an appellate court is
obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the
determination reached by the court below.
Courts: Appeal and Error. The order of an
appellate court is conclusive on the parties, and no judgment
or order different from, or in addition to, that directed by
the appellate court can be entered by the trial court.
Appeals from the District Court for Douglas County: Peter C.
Bataillon, Judge. Affirmed.
S. Munnelly for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Stacy, Funke, and Papik, JJ.
Washington appeals from the district court's denial of
his motion to vacate and the subsequent reinstatement of
sentences originally ordered on April 18, 2011. Washington
appeals. We affirm.
Neb. 421] BACKGROUND
case is procedurally complex. Following a jury trial.
Washington was convicted of nine counts for first degree
assault; second degree assault; possession of a firearm by a
prohibited person; discharging a firearm in certain cities,
villages, and counties; three counts of use of a weapon to
commit a felony; possession of a firearm by a prohibited
person; and possession of a stolen firearm. These charges
result from separate incidents occurring on March 17 and 27,
April 18, 2011, the district court sentenced Washington to a
combined total of 70 to 110 years' imprisonment. The
district court then informed Washington, incorrectly, that he
would be eligible for parole in 35 years, less the 387 days
already served, and released in 55 years, less the 387 days
already served. Two days later, on April 20, the district
court attempted to resentence Washington to reflect the
court's intent that Washington would be eligible for
parole in a certain number of years or be released in a
certain number of years.
appealed, but on June 19, 2011, in case No. A-l 1-402, his
appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals for
lack of jurisdiction, because a poverty affidavit had not
State filed a petition to docket error proceedings, which was
granted. In its petition, the State argued that the April 20,
2011, attempt to resentence Washington was of no effect. The
Court of Appeals agreed and on February 27, 2012, in case No.
A-11-416, held that the April 18 sentence remained in effect,
but the court remanded the matter for a new advisement on
good time ...