State v. Vela

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Erick F. Vela’s motion for postconviction relief. Vela alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel concerning the timing of his guilty plea, a prosecutor’s relationship with a juror, Batson challenges, expert testing, jury instructions, and evidence of malice. The court held that the claims either failed to allege sufficient facts showing prejudice or were unsupported by the record, and it declined to consider an additional constitutional claim not presented to the district court.

Holdings

1. A constitutional issue not presented to or passed upon by the trial court is not appropriate for consideration on appeal.
2. A postconviction court must grant an evidentiary hearing when the motion alleges facts that, if proved, would constitute a violation of the defendant's federal or state constitutional rights causing the judgment to be void or voidable. No hearing is required for conclusory allegations or when the record and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.
3. To prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland, a defendant must show deficient performance and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
4. A claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be raised in postconviction review when it could not have been raised on direct appeal, and failure to raise an issue on appeal constitutes ineffective assistance only when there is a reasonable probability that including the issue would have changed the appeal's result.
5. Vela failed to allege facts showing that counsel's failure to secure an earlier guilty plea constituted deficient performance or caused prejudice.
6. Vela did not show prejudice from counsel's failure to challenge or strike a juror who was the prosecutor's pastor.
7. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court's denial of Vela's Batson challenges because there was no reasonable probability that the appeal would have changed the result.
8. Vela failed to show prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to permit additional adaptive-functioning testing because the State's expert conducted adaptive-behavior testing through alternative means and concluded that Vela's overall adaptive behavior was age-appropriate.
9. Vela failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to request a malice instruction or present evidence negating malice concerning the Lundell homicide because evidence of the homicide, regardless of its degree, supported the aggravating circumstance of a substantial prior history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Vela's constitutional claim challenging Nebraska's capital-sentencing scheme under Hurst v. Florida could be considered when it was not presented to or passed upon by the district court.
2. Whether the district court properly denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing on Vela's claims that counsel was ineffective concerning the timing of his guilty plea.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to discover or challenge a personal relationship between a prosecutor and the presiding juror.
4. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court's denial of Vela's Batson challenges.
5. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to permit or present additional testing concerning Vela's intellectual and adaptive functioning.
6. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a malice instruction or present evidence negating malice concerning the Lundell homicide used to support an aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

affirmed