State v. Ammons, 984 N.W.2d 330

Ammons was charged in 2019 with multiple counts, ultimately pleading guilty (pursuant to a plea agreement) to two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person (first offense).
At plea and sentencing the parties discussed concurrent sentences, but the district court—after Ammons missed an initial sentencing and was later sentenced via videoconference while in custody—imposed consecutive 6–8 year terms on each count.
Trial counsel did not file a timely notice of appeal. Ammons alleges he asked counsel to perfect an appeal after sentencing and later attempted to file pro se but missed procedural requirements.
Ammons filed a pro se verified postconviction motion asserting ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal; an evidentiary hearing followed with depositions of Ammons, his wife, and trial counsel.
The district court credited trial counsel and denied relief, finding Ammons did not direct counsel to file an appeal. Ammons appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed: it held counsel’s failure to consult with Ammons about an appeal after imposition of unexpected consecutive sentences was deficient, Ammons established prejudice (reasonable probability he would have timely appealed), and remanded with directions to grant a new direct appeal.

Issue	Ammons' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Ammons specifically instructed counsel to file a notice of appeal	Ammons says he urged counsel to perfect a notice of appeal after sentencing	State/counsel say Ammons never directly instructed counsel to file an appeal	No specific instruction found; prejudice not presumed from a directive refusal
Whether counsel’s failure to consult about an appeal was constitutionally deficient	Counsel failed to advise Ammons of advantages/disadvantages or to discover his wishes after an unexpected consecutive sentence	Counsel contends he discussed appeals pre‑plea and would have filed if asked; no post‑sentencing contact occurred	Counsel’s failure to consult after imposition of consecutive sentences (and where Ammons was remote on video) was deficient under Roe v. Flores‑Ortega
Whether Ammons proved prejudice from counsel’s deficient performance	Ammons would have timely appealed but for counsel’s failure; lacked experience and access to law library during COVID restrictions	State argues Ammons knew he had appeal rights and did not timely request counsel to file	Prejudice shown: reasonable probability Ammons would have timely appealed; relief awarded (new direct appeal ordered)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (sets counsel’s duty to consult about appeal and prejudice standard when appeal is forfeited)
Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (district court’s failure to advise of appeal rights does not require relief when defendant knew of right and suffered no prejudice)
State v. Russell, 308 Neb. 499 (Neb. 2021) (applies Strickland and Roe framework in Nebraska postconviction context)
State v. Wagner, 271 Neb. 253 (Neb. 2006) (prejudice inquiry for failure to file appeal: reasonable probability defendant would have appealed)
State v. Amaya, 276 Neb. 818 (Neb. 2008) (failure to give specific instruction is relevant to presumption of prejudice)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2018) (sentencing discretion re concurrent vs. consecutive sentences)
Rojas‑Medina v. United States, 924 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2019) (explains that merely notifying a defendant an appeal is available is insufficient; must discuss pros/cons and discover wishes)