State v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 28 September 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. S–11–723.,S–11–723. |
| Citation | 284 Neb. 382,821 N.W.2d 680 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Christopher A. EDWARDS, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
[284 Neb. 382]1. Constitutional Law: Due Process. Whether the procedures given an individual comport with constitutional requirements for procedural due process presents a question of law.
2. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. A petitioner's claim that his or her defense counsel provided ineffective assistance presents a mixed question of law and fact. An appellate court reviews factual findings for clear error. Whether the defense counsel's performance was deficient and whether the petitioner was prejudiced by that performance are questions of law that the appellate court reviews independently of the lower court's decision.
3. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Proof. A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the defendant's rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution.
4. Postconviction: Proof. If a postconviction motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law, or if the records and files in the case affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing.
5. Postconviction: Appeal and Error. In appeals from postconviction proceedings, an appellate court independently resolves questions of law.
6. Postconviction: Constitutional Law. A trial court's ruling that the petitioner's allegations are refuted by the record or are too conclusory to demonstrate a violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights is not a finding of fact—it is a determination, as a matter of law, that the petitioner has failed to state a claim for postconviction relief.
7. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Appeal and Error. In appeals from post-conviction proceedings, an appellate court reviews de novo a determination that the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his or her constitutional rights or that the record and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.
8. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. When a case presents layered claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellate court determines whether the petitioner was prejudiced by his or her appellate counsel's failure to raise issues related to his or her trial counsel's performance. If the trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, then the petitioner cannot show prejudice from the appellate counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to raise the issue on appeal.
9. Constitutional Law: Effectiveness of Counsel. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleges a violation of the fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial.
10. Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof: Appeal and Error. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the defendant must show that his or her counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant's defense. An appellate court may address the two prongs of this test, deficient performance and prejudice, in either order.
11. Criminal Law: Effectiveness of Counsel. A trial counsel's performance was deficient if it did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law.
12. Effectiveness of Counsel: Presumptions. In determining whether a trial counsel's performance was deficient, courts give his or her acts a strong presumption of reasonableness.
13. Trial: Attorneys at Law: Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance, an appellate court will not second-guess a trial counsel's reasonable strategic decisions. And an appellate court must assess the trial counsel's performance from the counsel's perspective when the counsel provided the assistance.
14. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. In addressing the “prejudice” component of the test under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), an appellate court focuses on whether a trial counsel's deficient performance renders the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally unfair.
15. Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof: Words and Phrases. To show prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for his or her counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
16. Venue. Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29–1301 (Reissue 2008), a change of venue is mandated when a defendant cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in the county where the offense was committed.
17. Venue: Appeal and Error. An appellate court evaluates a court's change of venue ruling under eight factors unless the defendant claims that the pretrial publicity was so pervasive and prejudicial that the appellate court should presume the unconstitutional partiality of the prospective jurors.
18. Venue: Juror Qualifications. Under most circumstances, voir dire examination provides the best opportunity to determine whether a court should change venue.
19. Venue: Juror Qualifications: Presumptions. Two circumstances exist when the prospective jurors' claims of impartiality are presumptively unreliable. First, pervasive pretrial publicity that is sufficiently inflammatory can create a presumption of prejudice in a community and require a change of venue to a location untainted by the publicity. Second, if most of the prospective jurors admit to a disqualifying prejudice, the reliability of the others' claims of impartiality is called into question.
20. Venue: Due Process. Mere exposure to news accounts of a crime does not presumptively deprive a defendant of due process. Even the community's extensive knowledge about the crime or the defendant through pretrial publicity is insufficient in itself to render a trial constitutionally unfair if the media coverage consists of merely factual accounts that do not reflect animus or hostility toward the defendant.
21. Venue: Presumptions: Courts. In determining whether the pretrial publicity created a presumption of prejudice, a court should consider whether the media coverage was (1) invidious or inflammatory, as distinguished from factual, and (2) pervasive.
22. Constitutional Law: Trial: Due Process. A fair trial before a fair and impartial jury is a basic requirement of constitutional due process guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Nebraska.
23. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Trial: Due Process: Public Officers and Employees. Short of claiming actual innocence, to establish a violation of the Due Process Clause based on the State's use of false evidence at trial, the defendant in a postconviction proceeding must allege that state action was involved. The conduct of state officials must have rendered his or her conviction inconsistent with the due process guarantee of a fair trial in which the truth-seeking process has not been corrupted.
24. Trial: Due Process: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Witnesses. A due process violation occurs when a law enforcement officer who participated in the investigation or preparation of the prosecution's case fabricates evidence or gives false testimony against the defendant at trial on an issue material to guilt or innocence.
25. Due Process: Convictions: Evidence. The State's knowing use of false evidence to secure a conviction violates a defendant's due process rights. A conviction is tainted and must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false evidence could have affected the jury's verdict.
26. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error: Words and Phrases. “Appellate jurisdiction” is the power vested in a superior court to review and revise a decision that has been tried in an inferior court.
27. Effectiveness of Counsel: Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest must be actual rather than speculative or hypothetical before a court will overturn a conviction because of ineffective assistance of counsel.
28. Effectiveness of Counsel: Conflict of Interest. The right to effective assistance of counsel entitles the accused to his or her counsel's undivided loyalties, free from conflicting interests.
29. Constitutional Law: Effectiveness of Counsel: Conflict of Interest: Proof. A defendant who raised no objection at trial must show that an actual conflict of interest existed and that the conflict adversely affected his lawyer's performance. If the defendant satisfies this requirement, the defendant is not required to show that the Sixth Amendment violation had a probable effect on the outcome of the trial to obtain relief.
30. Trial: Witnesses: Attorney and Client. Although not common, a defense counsel's close personal relationship with a material prosecution witness can create a conflict of interest if the evidence shows that the defense counsel's desire to protect the witness outweighed his or her duty to represent the defendant's interests.
31. Attorneys at Law: Conflict of Interest. Conflicts of interests resulting from successive representations can occur when a defendant's trial counsel previously represented a codefendant, trial witness, or victim.
32. Trial: Attorney and Client: Conflict of Interest. If a defense counsel acts or refrains from acting at trial in loyalty to a former client in a manner that is inconsistent with the defendant's interests, the defense counsel actively represents conflicting interests no less than a defense counsel who does the same during concurrent representations.
33. Trial: Attorneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lotter
...e.g., State v. Dubray , 294 Neb. 937, 885 N.W.2d 540 (2016) ; State v. Phelps , 286 Neb. 89, 834 N.W.2d 786 (2013) ; State v. Edwards , 284 Neb. 382, 821 N.W.2d 680 (2012), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Avina-Murillo , 301 Neb. 185, 917 N.W.2d 865 (2018) ; Lotter, supra note 24 ; S......
-
State v. Rocha
...at 289. 19.State v. Watt, supra note 4; State v. Huston, supra note 4. 20. See, e.g., State v. Huston, supra note 4; State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382, 821 N.W.2d 680 (2012). 21.State v. Edwards, supra note 20. 22.State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798, 806 N.W.2d 404 (2011). 23.State v. Poe, supra ......
-
State v. Dubray
...v. Baker, 286 Neb. 524, 837 N.W.2d 91 (2013).40 See id.41 See Fox, supra note 38.42 See Morgan, supra note 36.43 See State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382, 821 N.W.2d 680 (2012).44 See State v. Robinson, 287 Neb. 799, 844 N.W.2d 312 (2014).45 See State v. Fester, 287 Neb. 40, 840 N.W.2d 543 (2013)......
-
State v. Galindo
...the judgment of the jury." United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). See, also, State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382, 821 N.W.2d 680 (2012), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Avina-Murillo, 301 Neb. 185, 917 N.W.2d 865 (2018). In this challenge to the pe......