State v. Manjikian

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Vazgen Manjikian’s conviction and sentence following his no contest plea to attempted possession of a controlled substance. The court held that the plea was freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered, that Manjikian waived his double-jeopardy claim through the plea agreement, and that the sentence was not an abuse of discretion. The court also addressed the standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal.

Holdings

1. The plea was freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered because the district court advised Manjikian of the nature of the charge, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses, the right to a jury trial, and the privilege against self-incrimination, and the record established a factual basis and his understanding of the penalty range. The court was not required to adopt an additional requirement that defendants be advised of a general waiver of appellate rights.
2. Manjikian waived his double-jeopardy claim by expressly agreeing in the plea agreement to forfeit the money and waive claims of double jeopardy under the federal and Nebraska Constitutions and State v. Franco.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Manjikian to 180 days' imprisonment because the sentence was within the statutory limits and the record showed consideration of appropriate sentencing factors without reliance solely on improper or unsubstantiated information.
4. The ineffective-assistance claims were sufficiently reviewable on the existing record and lacked merit; Manjikian failed to establish deficient performance and actual prejudice in connection with his plea.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court adequately established that Manjikian's no contest plea was freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered.
2. Whether acceptance of the plea and the agreed forfeiture violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 180-day term of imprisonment.
4. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in advising Manjikian regarding the plea, the strength of the State's case, possession, and double-jeopardy protections, and whether those claims could be resolved on direct appeal.

Disposition

affirmed