State v. Jim

275 Neb. 481 (2008) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · April 18, 2008 · No. No. S-06-1217

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 PDF
Loading document…