State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 30 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-245,89-245 |
| Citation | 234 Neb. 890,453 N.W.2d 399 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Ronald E. WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Postconviction: Proof: Appeal and Error. A defendant seeking postconviction relief has the burden of establishing a basis for such relief, and the findings of the district court will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
2. Postconviction: Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof. When the defendant in a postconviction motion alleges a violation of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel as a basis for relief, the standard for determining the propriety of the claim is whether the attorney, in representing the accused, performed at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law in the area. Further, the defendant must make a showing of how the defendant was prejudiced in the defense of his case as a result of his attorney's actions or inactions.
3. Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof. To sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a violation of the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and thereby obtain reversal of a defendant's conviction, the defendant must show that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) such deficient performance prejudiced the defense, that is, a demonstration of reasonable probability that, but for 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.
4. Trial: Effectiveness of Counsel. The fact that a trial strategy adopted by defense counsel proved to be unsuccessful in that the defendant was convicted does not alone sustain a finding of ineffectiveness of counsel.
5. Effectiveness of Counsel. In any effectiveness of counsel case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments.
Gregory M. Schatz, of Stave, Coffey, Swenson, Jansen, & Schatz, P.C., Omaha, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Douglas J. Peterson, Lincoln, for appellee.
In 1986 the defendant, Ronald E. Williams, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony. He was sentenced to 20 years on the murder conviction and to 3 years for the use of a firearm, the sentences to run consecutively. The judgment was affirmed by this court in State v. Williams, 226 Neb. 647, 413 N.W.2d 907 (1987).
On July 12, 1988, the defendant filed his pro se motion to vacate and set aside the judgment pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 1989). At the evidential hearing on January 19, 1989, the defendant presented the record of his trial and his deposition, which contained 18 allegations of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, the chief deputy Douglas County public defender.
The standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in State v. Jones, 231 Neb. 110, 112-13, 435 N.W.2d 650, 652 (1989):
See, also, State v. Gagliano, 231 Neb. 911, 438 N.W.2d 783 (1989).
Following the evidential hearing in this case, the trial court determined that as to nine of the allegations, there was clearly no issue of fact, and that they had no merit. The allegations and the court's findings were as follows:
1. That his counsel failed to discuss his right to file plea in abatement following his preliminary hearing. Regardless of whether counsel discussed that right, in fact, his plea of not guilty at arraignment was tendered subject to a plea in abatement which in fact was subsequently filed and was considered and overruled.
2. That counsel failed to move the court to suppress his statement and failed to advise him that he had a right to have his statement suppressed. Regardless of whether he was so advised, in fact, a motion to suppress his statement was filed, was heard and was overruled.
3. That counsel failed to move the court for suppression of physical evidence offered by the State at trial. The only physical evidence offered by the State at trial was a copy of the rights advisory form, the tape recording of defendant's statement and some photographs and charts. The rights advisory form and the tape of defendant's statement were addressed in the motion to suppress his statment [sic]. The photographs and charts would not form the subject matter of a motion to suppress such evidence.
4. That counsel advised defendant against accepting a plea bargain offer by the State. Defendant's testimony and that of [defense counsel] are not in dispute in that the only plea bargain offered by the State was an agreement to change Murder I to Murder II and to drop Count II, (use of a firearm in commission of a felony), in exchange for a guilty plea to Murder II. Upon being advised by [defense counsel] that defendant would have to admit the intentional act of killing the victim, defendant refused the offer. He would have accepted an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter, but such offer was never made by the State.
5. That counsel failed to inquire of the pathologist who performed the autopsy whether he could determine by the path of the bullet whether the victim's arms were raised or lowered at the time of the shooting. [Defense counsel] did discuss this with another pathologist and concluded that it could not be so determined.
6. That counsel failed to move the court for mistrial because certain jurors were sleeping during the course of the trial. Defendant complained of one juror in particular, but did not indicate during what portion or portions of the trial he was sleeping. Nor has he made any showing that the juror was actually sleeping rather than having his eyes shut, a common practice by jurors.
7. Counsel failed to investigate why certain jurors were openly crying when the jury rendered its verdict. In fact, two female juiors [sic] did visibly cry when the verdict was rendered. The verdict ended a serious responsibility for the jurors. Although the evidence more than amply supported the jury's verdict, from the evidence the shooting could be well characterized as a tragedy that should never have occurred. As [defense counsel] pointed out, the evidence of defendant's background and his presentation as a witness could well have characterized him as a likeable person. [Defense counsel] polled all jurors. Under the circumstances, the reaction of the two jurors was a foreseeable human emotional reaction reflecting the finality of the discharge of their function, and nothing more.
8. That counsel failed to devote adequate time to his case because of counsel's heavy caseload at the time of defendant's trial. Defendant's testimony showed nothing more than that [defense counsel] had five to ten other cases he was handling including at least five murder cases. [Defense counsel] testified that defendant never complained to him about this and defendant does not contend that he did so. Defendant stated no specifics and otherwise makes no showing as to how counsel failed to devote adequate time to his case.
9. That counsel failed to discuss a trial strategy with him. Defendant does not state any trial strategy he claims should have been adopted. [Defense counsel] testified that he knew defendant's father, that he was in contact with defendant a day after he turned himself in. The trial strategy of self defense was obvious from the beginning, and it is incredible to think that defendant was not aware of it.
As to the remaining 10 allegations, the trial court found that the defendant was not sufficiently prejudiced by any of them even if they had any merit.
The defendant has appealed and contends the trial court erred in finding that he had not been denied effective assistance of counsel and in denying his motion for postconviction relief.
The facts relating to the original conviction are set forth in detail in State v. Williams, 226 Neb. 647, 413 N.W.2d 907 (1987).
Briefly stated, the evidence showed that the defendant shot and killed Eric Holmes in the early morning hours of April 13, 1986, during a confrontation on a residential street in Omaha, Nebraska.
The defendant testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...Williams failed to establish a basis for postconviction relief, and we affirmed the judgment of the district court. State v. Williams, 234 Neb. 890, 453 N.W.2d 399 (1990). Thereafter, Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebras......
-
State v. Joubert
...such relief and that the findings of the postconviction court will not be disturbed unless they are clearly wrong. State v. Williams, 234 Neb. 890, 453 N.W.2d 399 (1990); State v. Reeves, 234 Neb. 711, 453 N.W.2d 359 (1990); State v. Harton, 230 Neb. 167, 430 N.W.2d 313 (1988). Moreover, it......
-
State v. Dixon
...to draw the conclusion that defense counsel's strategy at trial constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Williams, 234 Neb. 890, 453 N.W.2d 399 (1990). Dixon complains about the absence of Dr. Roffman's pretrial deposition, the absence of a challenge to Dr. Roffman's qual......
-
State v. Escamilla
...assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments. State v. Williams, 234 Neb. 890, 453 N.W.2d 399 (1990); State v. Domingus, In order to satisfy the prejudice requirement in the context of a plea, the defendant must show that......