State v. Banks, 856 N.W.2d 305

Banks was convicted in 2007 of first degree murder and related firearm charges for the shooting death of Robert Herndon, with consecutive life and 20–30 year sentences.
On direct appeal, Banks’ convictions and sentences were affirmed in 2009.
In 2011, Banks filed a pro se postconviction relief motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for various failures.
The district court partially overruled and partially sustained the State’s motion, and granted Banks leave to amend solely to specify an exculpatory witness for the pretrial investigation claim.
Banks amended to allege that trial counsel failed to interview two witnesses, Ravlinson and Bowling, who could have supported a self-defense theory at trial.
The district court later denied an evidentiary hearing on Banks’ amended postconviction motion, and Banks timely appealed the August 5, 2013 order; the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over March 23, 2012 order	Banks argues the appeal encompasses the denied claims.	State asserts the March 23, 2012 order was a final, separately appealable order and not timely appealed.	We lack jurisdiction to review claims denied in the March 23, 2012 order.
entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on pretrial investigation	Banks contends counsel’s pretrial investigation was deficient and warrants an evidentiary hearing.	State argues the motion's allegations are conclusory and insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.	No evidentiary hearing required; allegations were conclusory and unsupported.

State v. Yuma, 286 Neb. 244 (2013) (jurisdictional questions reviewed as a matter of law)
State v. Robinson, 287 Neb. 606 (2014) (ineffective assistance of counsel reviewed as mixed question; Strickland standard applied)
State v. Phelps, 286 Neb. 89 (2013) (postconviction evidentiary hearing required when factual allegations may infringe constitutional rights)
State v. Davlin, 277 Neb. 972 (2009) (conclusory postconviction claims do not warrant an evidentiary hearing)