State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520

Mendez-Osorio was charged in Saline County with terroristic threats, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and negligent child abuse after a September 4, 2015 domestic incident.
A jury convicted him on all counts; district court sentenced him to concurrent terms and imposed post-release supervision on Counts 1 and 2.
Court of Appeals affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing on some issues.
Nebraska Supreme Court granted direct review to address ineffective-assistance claims, sufficiency of the evidence for negligent child abuse, and sentencing errors.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals on the ineffective-assistance claims and the negligent-child-abuse conviction, but vacated all sentences and remanded for resentencing due to plain sentencing errors.
The court found two sentencing plain errors: misclassification of use of a weapon as a Class III rather than Class II felony with post-release supervision, and a concurrent sentence scheme that violated 28-1205(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ineffective assistance claims can be resolved on direct appeal	Mendez-Osorio argues trial counsel was ineffective in several aspects.	State contends the record is insufficient to decide the claims on direct appeal.	Some claims resolved on direct appeal; record insufficient for others.
Sufficiency of evidence for negligent child abuse under 28-707(1)(a)	Evidence showed endangerment of children due to the incident.	State’s proof did not meet the statute’s endangerment standard.	Evidence sufficient to support misdemeanor negligent child abuse under 28-707(1)(a).
Plain error in sentencing due to misclassification of use of a weapon and post-release supervision	Misclassification rendered the sentence unlawful.	No reversible error or improper sentence identified.	Plain error; vacate sentences and remand for resentencing.
Plain error in imposing concurrent sentences for use of a weapon	Concurrent sentencing violated 28-1205(3).	Court reasonably ordered concurrent sentences.	Plain error; require consecutive sentencing; remand for resentencing.

State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670 (2017) (ineffective assistance and direct appeal standards)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (2014) (prejudice prong in direct appeal ineffective-assistance review clarified)
State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (2014) (plain error sentencing guidance and remand authority)
State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (2017) (standard of review for sufficiency and plain error in sentencing)
State v. Crowdell, 234 Neb. 469 (1990) (definition and breadth of endangerment under 28-707(1)(a))