State v. Muratella
| Docket Number | S-22-332 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2023 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Gabriel R. Muratella, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Judgments: Statutes: Appeal and Error. To the extent an appeal calls for statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
2. Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error. The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to appeals from motions for new trial denied after an evidentiary hearing.
3. Postconviction: Pleas. Whether the common-law procedure for withdrawing a plea after conviction is available presents a question of law.
4. Motions for New Trial: Pleas. Accepted pleas that result in an adjudgment of guilty are "verdicts of conviction" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (Reissue 2016).
5. Motions for New Trial. To be granted a new trial, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (Reissue 2016) requires that the enumerated grounds materially affect the defendant's substantial rights.
6. Postconviction: Pleas: Proof. The unavailability of the Nebraska Postconviction Act is a material element that must be pled and proved by a defendant seeking to use the procedure for withdrawing a plea after conviction.
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori A. Maret Judge.
Joe Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Chelsie E. Krell for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Gabriel R. Muratella appeals from the district court's overruling of his motion for new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat §§ 29-2101 to 29-2103 (Reissue 2016) and his motion to withdraw his plea under our common-law procedure recognized in State v Gonzalez.[1] Because Muratella failed to satisfy the requirements for such relief, we affirm.
In 2019, Muratella pleaded no contest[2] and was adjudged guilty of one count of attempted delivery or possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a Class IIA felony.[3] Muratella was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 to 12 years.
The factual basis presented at Muratella's plea hearing included that an officer observed an unknown male ask a shipping store clerk for an earbud case and that when the officer identified himself as law enforcement, the unknown male left the area. The officer then opened the earbud case and observed what he immediately identified as suspected methamphetamine. The officer obtained a preliminary weight of the suspected methamphetamine of approximately 18 grams, which in the officer's experience would be more consistent with dealer quantities than that of methamphetamine users. The officer conducted a field test, and the suspected methamphetamine yielded a positive result for methamphetamine. After conducting research, the officer identified Muratella as the unknown male.
The State's factual basis also included that Muratella told his probation officer that "the methamphetamine belonged to a friend" and that he went to retrieve the earbud case "after the friend told him that drugs were contained in the case." The crime laboratory for the Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) later tested the suspected methamphetamine found in the earbud case, which was confirmed as methamphetamine with a total net weight of 16.636 grams.
In 2022, in response to the indictment of NSP evidence technician Anna Idigima,[4] Muratella applied for a new trial on six enumerated grounds under § 29-2101 and moved to withdraw his plea. The district court held a hearing on both motions. In support of his motions, Muratella offered, and the court received, an affidavit from his counsel, a chain of custody report for the seized substance, a copy of Idigima's indictment, and an NSP report regarding the seized substance.
The affidavit set forth that Muratella learned that Idigima was federally indicted as a result of an investigation into the theft and distribution of drugs that she had access to during the course and scope of her employment duties at the NSP crime laboratory. Muratella first received notice of Idigima's involvement in his case in November 2021 and immediately commenced discussions with the State to discover the extent and effect of Idigima's conduct on his case. In early January 2022, Muratella received an NSP chain of custody report for the seized methamphetamine from the State. The parties agreed that Idigima "was in the direct line of the chain of custody and a necessary and material witness" in the State's case. It was the State's "understanding" that the methamphetamine evidence was not missing and remained in NSP custody. The affidavit also set forth that Muratella would not have pleaded no contest had he known about the issue regarding the chain of custody due to Idigima's indictment.
The chain of custody report showed that Idigima was responsible for the seized methamphetamine in Muratella's case. Idigima's indictment showed she was indicted related to the distribution and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances "[b]eginning on or about June 1, 2021, and continuing to on or about September 23, 2021 ...." The NSP report showed that the officer who recovered the earbud case submitted the contents to the NSP crime laboratory for weighing and identification and that the laboratory confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine.
Muratella argued that six separate grounds set forth in § 29-2101 warranted the grant of a new trial. In sum, Muratella asserted that the chain of custody issue amounted to (1) an irregularity in the proceedings of the witnesses for the State, which prevented him from having a fair trial;[5] (2) misconduct of a witness for the State;[6] (3) surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against;[7] (4) an insufficiency of evidence that did not sustain the verdict;[8] and (5) newly discovered evidence material to the State's case, the full extent of which cannot be known.[9] Muratella also asserted that (6) the acceptance of his plea amounted to an error of law.[10]
In addition, Muratella argued that he satisfied the requirements to withdraw his plea of no contest because his plea was not made voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. Muratella asserted that when he entered his plea, he believed the State could prove its case against him and was unaware that neither the chain of evidence nor sufficient foundation could be established for the evidence to be received at a trial. Muratella contended that "[a] constitution[al] right or rights [were] at issue, i.e., due process among others."
The State did not oppose either of Muratella's motions. The State did not dispute that Idigima was solely responsible for the custody and control of the seized methamphetamine and that she would be a material and necessary witness for the State to establish a chain of custody for the evidence to be admissible at trial.
The district court issued an order overruling Muratella's motions. Regarding his motion for new trial, the court noted a potential inconsistency in our case law.[11] Still, it reasoned that defendants who pleaded guilty or no contest could not move for a new trial because they waived all defenses to the charged crime and their right to trial. In the alternative, the district court determined that Muratella's motion for a new trial failed on its merits because the newly discovered evidence related to Idigima amounted only to impeachment evidence. The court did not address the other grounds that Muratella asserted warranted him a new trial.
In overruling Muratella's motion to withdraw his plea, the court determined that Muratella did not make the requisite showings that we have held are necessary precursors to withdrawing a plea under our common-law procedure. The district court concluded that under that framework, Muratella was not entitled to withdraw his plea because he failed to show why the Nebraska Postconviction Act was unavailable to him.
Muratella timely filed a notice of appeal for both motions. Before filing his brief on appeal, Muratella filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Muratella's former counsel filed a motion to withdraw as his counsel. The district court sustained both motions and appointed Muratella counsel on appeal. We moved his appeal to our docket.[12]
Muratella assigns, renumbered and restated, that the district court erred in (1) overruling his motion for a new trial and (2) overruling his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest. Additionally, Muratella assigns that (3) if the proper avenue for relief was under the Nebraska Postconviction Act, his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek such relief.
To the extent an appeal calls for statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.[13]
The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to appeals from motions for new trial denied after an evidentiary hearing.[14] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.[15]
Whether the common-law procedure for withdrawing a plea after conviction, recognized in State v Gonzalez,[16] is available presents a question of law.[17]
Muratella makes two arguments in support of his assignment that the district court erred in overruling his motion for new trial. First, he argues that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial