State v. Johnson

298 Neb. 491 (2017) · Nebraska Supreme Court · December 22, 2017 · No. No. S-17-069

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Craig A. Johnson’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The court rejected his claims of ineffective assistance concerning voir dire, a directed verdict, closing argument, his right to testify, and appellate representation, as well as his constitutional speedy-trial claim. The court concluded that the alleged prosecutorial remarks were not improper, the evidence supported the convictions, and the record showed Johnson was not entitled to relief.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Funke, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Wright, J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Kelch, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
December 22, 2017
Docket number
No. S-17-069
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of a verified motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Standard of review
The appellate court reviews de novo whether a postconviction petitioner alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a constitutional violation or whether the files and records affirmatively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. For ineffective-assistance claims presenting mixed questions of law and fact, factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while the ultimate deficiency and prejudice determinations are reviewed independently.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Craig A. Johnson v. State of Nebraska
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefineffective assistanceprosecutorial misconductspeedy trialappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal postconvictionineffective assistance of counselcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Johnson was entitled to an evidentiary hearing or postconviction relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire.
  2. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to argue in support of a motion for directed verdict.
  3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's closing argument.
  4. Whether counsel was ineffective in connection with Johnson's constitutional right to testify.
  5. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to properly preserve or argue a challenge to autopsy photographs.
  6. Whether Johnson could raise a constitutional speedy-trial claim for the first time in postconviction proceedings.

Holdings

  1. An evidentiary hearing is unnecessary when the postconviction motion alleges only conclusions or fails to allege facts that, if proved, would establish a constitutional violation, or when the files and records affirmatively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.
  2. To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim, a defendant must show deficient counsel performance and a reasonable probability that, but for the deficiency, the proceeding's result would have been different.
  3. The challenged comments did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct because they were not misleading or unduly influential, and the closing-argument comments were reasonably based on evidence and permissible inferences.
  4. Although the right to testify is personal to the defendant and cannot be waived by counsel acting alone, Johnson was not entitled to a hearing because his motion alleged only conclusory assertions about what his testimony would have been and did not establish prejudice.
  5. A defendant may not raise in a postconviction motion an issue that could have been raised on direct appeal; Johnson's speedy-trial claim was therefore procedurally barred.

Key quotations

An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is required on an appropriate motion containing factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the movant’s rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution, causing the judgment against the defendant to be void or voidable. (at 498)
To show prejudice under the prejudice component of the Strickland test, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for his or her counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. (at 499)
A defendant has a fundamental constitutional right to testify. (at 506)
A party cannot raise an issue in a postconviction motion if he or she could have raised that same issue on direct appeal. (at 509)

Factual background

Johnson was convicted of murdering April Smith, using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possessing a deadly weapon as a prohibited person. The evidence included testimony concerning threats and an argument before the killing, evidence of a struggle and Smith's fatal injuries, Johnson's fingerprint on a trash bag associated with the killing, Smith's DNA on a knife, and Smith's blood on Johnson's clothing and shoes. Johnson did not testify at trial and later alleged that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, including for failing to object to prosecutorial comments, failing to argue a directed-verdict motion, preventing or failing to secure his testimony, and mishandling an autopsy-photograph issue.

Procedural history

Johnson was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and received consecutive prison sentences. His direct appeal resulted in rejection of his Batson claim and other assignments, while an evidentiary error was found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson then filed a verified motion for postconviction relief alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance and a speedy-trial violation. The Cheyenne County District Court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…