Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a district court may not grant postconviction relief without determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and, when appropriate, making findings of fact and conclusions of law. It further held that a new direct appeal is not the proper remedy for a layered claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel; such claims must be adjudicated in the postconviction proceeding.
Holdings
- A district court may not grant postconviction relief without first determining whether the motion and record require an evidentiary hearing, conducting a hearing when the motion alleges facts that would establish a constitutional violation and the record does not conclusively refute relief, and making findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- A new direct appeal is not an appropriate postconviction remedy when the defendant's direct appeal was perfected and decided on the merits, but appellate counsel allegedly failed to raise and preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- A layered claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be adjudicated in postconviction proceedings under the Strickland v. Washington framework.
Questions Presented
- Whether a district court may grant postconviction relief without first determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required, conducting the hearing when warranted, and making findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Whether a new direct appeal is an appropriate postconviction remedy when a defendant's direct appeal was perfected and resolved on the merits, but appellate counsel allegedly failed to raise and preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Whether the district court should determine on remand whether Jim's motion alleged sufficient factual claims and whether the files and records conclusively refuted entitlement to relief.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (27)
- State v. Jim, 13 Neb. Ct. App. 112, 688 N.W.2d 895 (2004)(followed procedurally)
- State v. Bossow, 274 Neb. 836, 744 N.W.2d 43 (2008)(cited)
- State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346, 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007)(cited)
- State v. Marshall, 272 Neb. 924, 725 N.W.2d 834 (2007)(cited)
- State v. McDermott, 267 Neb. 761, 677 N.W.2d 156 (2004)(cited)
- State v. Harris, 274 Neb. 40, 735 N.W.2d 774 (2007)(cited)
- State v. Moore, 272 Neb. 71, 178 N.W.2d 537 (2006)(cited)
- State v. McLeod, 274 Neb. 566, 741 N.W.2d 664 (2007)(followed)
- State v. Reeves, 258 Neb. 511, 604 N.W.2d 151 (2000)(followed)
- State v. Costanzo, 235 Neb. 126, 454 N.W.2d 283 (1990)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 27.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…