State v. Baker, 286 Neb. 524

Baker appeals two postconviction motions challenging 2006 and 2007 first-degree murder convictions, each resulting in a life sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related rights claims.
Postconviction court denied both motions without an evidentiary hearing, finding no factual basis to support relief and that some claims were contradicted by the record.
In 2006 case, Baker claimed counsel failed to appeal a plea-abatement ruling, allowed waiver of speedy trial rights, failed to request a mental evaluation, and allowed withdrawal of an appeal, plus other alleged misconduct.
In 2007 case, Baker claimed counsel failed to timely raise speedy-trial issues and failed to request a mental evaluation, with additional claims of prosecutorial and judicial incompetence handling.
Nebraska statute requires a postconviction movant to allege facts that, if proven, would show a denial or violation of constitutional rights; evidentiary hearings are warranted only if factual allegations could demonstrate such rights were violated.
On review, the Nebraska Supreme Court independently analyzes postconviction claims de novo and reverses only if the record shows error or if claims state a prima facie case for relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.	Baker asserts layered ineffective-assistance claims and competency issues warrant an evidentiary hearing.	State contends the motions contain no provable facts showing a constitutional violation and the record refutes the allegations.	No error; motions fail to allege facts entitling relief.
Whether Baker showed prejudice from trial counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance.	Baker alleges trial counsel’s failures undermined the trial's fairness and outcome.	Record shows no deficient performance or prejudice; claims are conclusory or refuted by the record.	No prejudice; deficient-performance claims lacking proof.
Whether Baker showed prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to raise trial-counsel issues on direct appeal.	Appellate counsel failed to raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness, prejudicing Baker.	Because trial counsel was not ineffective, appellate failure cannot demonstrate prejudice.	No prejudice; no appellate-ineffectiveness shown.
Whether Baker established prejudice from the failure to seek a competency hearing.	Medication and other factors rendered Baker incompetent; a competency hearing was necessary.	Record shows Baker was competent; medications alone do not establish incompetence; no hearing needed.	No prejudice; no reasonable probability of incompetence shown.

State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382 (2012) (independent de novo review in postconviction appeals; non-factual determinations not relief-granting)
State v. Watkins, 284 Neb. 742 (2012) (guide for when to grant evidentiary hearing in postconviction proceedings)
State v. Robinson, 285 Neb. 394 (2013) (Strickland prejudice framework; appellate court may address prongs in any order)
State v. Hessler, 282 Neb. 935 (2011) (prejudice from competency-related claims requires showing possible incompetence and probable court finding)
State v. Molina, 279 Neb. 405 (2010) (postconviction relief availability and standard for denial of relief)
State v. York, 278 Neb. 306 (2009) (precedent on postconviction procedural requirements and claims)
State v. Gunther, 278 Neb. 173 (2009) (standards for proving constitutional rights violations in postconviction)
State v. Jim, 275 Neb. 481 (2008) (procedural posture and standards for postconviction claims)