State v. Jones

• Citation: 522 N.W.2d 414,246 Neb. 673
• Decision Date: 07 October 1994
• Docket Number: No. S-93-360,S-93-360
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Stanley JONES, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 414

522 N.W.2d 414

246 Neb. 673

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Stanley JONES, Appellant.

No. S-93-360.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 7, 1994.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Rules of the Supreme Court: Trial: Records. Neb.Ct.R. of Official Ct.Rptrs. 4b(3) and (4) (rev.1992) requires the transcription of the voir dire exam and of opening and closing statements of the parties when requested by counsel, any party, or the court. The recordation of those parts of a trial was not made mandatory by the rules, and the failure to require recordation cannot be said, ipso facto, to constitute negligence or inadequacy of counsel.

2. Postconviction: Proof: Appeal and Error. The appellant in a postconviction proceeding has the burden of alleging and proving that the claimed error is prejudicial.

3. Juries: Discrimination: Proof. In order to establish a prima facie case of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury pool representing a fair cross section of the community, it must be shown (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.

4. Postconviction: Appeal and Error. A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure review of issues which were known to defendant and could have been litigated on direct appeal.

Stanley Jones, pro se.

Don Stenberg, Atty. Gen., and Marilyn B. Hutchinson, Lincoln, for appellee.

HASTINGS, C.J., and WHITE, CAPORALE, FAHRNBRUCH, LANPHIER, and WRIGHT, JJ., and BOSLAUGH, J., Retired.

WHITE, Justice.

In this third appearance before this court, Stanley Jones appeals from a decision of the district court for Douglas County denying postconviction relief.

In the first of the appeals, this court affirmed without opinion Jones' convictions for attempted robbery and use of a firearm to commit a felony and the motion of court-appointed counsel to withdraw on the ground that the appeal was frivolous. State v. Jones, 224 Neb. xxv (case No. 86-796, Jan. 23, 1987). At the hearing on the first postconviction petition, the district court ordered a direct appeal reinstated on the holding that the motion and supporting brief of appointed counsel did not conform to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit approved the reinstated direct appeal remedy ordered by the district court, and we considered all issues which were assigned and argued in the direct appeal. Again we affirmed. State v. Jones, 241 Neb. 740, 491 N.W.2d 30 (1992).

Jones assigns as error in this cause that (1) counsel failed to require the reporter to record voir dire of the jury, opening statements, closing arguments, and the rendering of the verdict; (2) the jury did not consist of a fair cross section of the community; and (3) counsel failed to request certain lesser-included instructions. The facts are set out in the previous opinion, see id., and need not be repeated here.

We will deal with the assigned errors in the order set out. Neb. Ct.R. of Official Ct.Rptrs. 4b(3) and (4) (rev.1992) requires the transcription of the voir dire exam and of opening and closing statements of the parties when requested by counsel, any party, or the court. The recordation of those parts of a trial was not made mandatory by the rules, and the failure to require recordation cannot be said, ipso facto, to constitute negligence or inadequacy of counsel.

Indeed, the appellant in a postconviction proceeding has the burden of alleging and proving that the claimed error is prejudicial. No error was alleged, and none was established at the postconviction hearing. The assignment is not meritorious. See State v. Meis, 233 Neb. 355, 445 N.W.2d 610 (1989), overruled on other grounds, State v. Stewart, 242 Neb. 712, 496 N.W.2d 524 (1993).

We consider Jones' next assignment of error. Jones alleges that the jury did not represent a fair cross section of the community, and he was thus denied a fair trial. Jones challenges the jury selection system. Jones is a black male, and the jury consisted of Caucasians. In order to establish a prima facie case of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury pool representing a fair cross section of the community, Jones must show

"(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process."

State v. Perez, 235 Neb. 796, 805, 457 N.W.2d 448, 455 (1990), quoting Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Jones must also show that the State purposefully discriminated against blacks in venire selection in order to establish a prima facie case of a violation of his 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection. See Perez, supra.

Jones fails to meet his burden. He alleges that blacks are underrepresented on juries in Douglas County, but fails to link any alleged underrepresentation to a systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury selection process as required by Perez. Jones also fails to show that the State purposefully discriminated against blacks on his venire or that the State even had the opportunity to discriminate.

Rudy Tesar, clerk of the district court for Douglas...