State v. Barrera-Garrido, 296 Neb. 647

In 2014, Arturo Barrera-Garrido pled no contest to first-degree false imprisonment and to using a deadly weapon (not a firearm) to commit a felony; a separate first-degree sexual assault charge was dismissed.
The State’s factual basis described holding the victim (M.C.) captive overnight, threats with a knife, and some alleged sexual conduct; police later found a knife in the patrol cruiser.
The district court accepted the pleas after a colloquy in which Barrera-Garrido acknowledged understanding the charges, said he had time to consult counsel, and confirmed the benefit of the plea (dismissal of the sexual-assault count).
Barrera-Garrido filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel: (1) counsel failed to adequately explain charges/evidence, (2) counsel failed to investigate or contact witnesses or pursue a self-defense theory, (3) counsel coerced/failed to negotiate a plea agreement, and (4) counsel did not advise about consequences of pleading.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the plea colloquy and record rebutted the claims and that the motion lacked factual detail (e.g., names of witnesses or what they would have said).
Barrera-Garrido appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the record and plea proceedings showed no entitlement to relief and that the motion alleged mainly conclusory claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel failed to adequately explain charges/evidence	Barrera-Garrido: counsel did not fully explain charges or evidence, so plea was unknowing	State/District: court’s plea colloquy fully explained charges; Barrera-Garrido said he understood and had no questions	Held: Claim refuted by plea colloquy; no hearing required
Whether counsel failed to investigate witnesses or pursue defenses	Barrera-Garrido: counsel failed to interview witness(es) and pursue self-defense based on alleged threats by victim’s family	State/District: motion lacked names/details and did not show how additional investigation/self-defense would have succeeded	Held: Conclusory; no factual support for prejudice; no hearing required
Whether counsel coerced or failed to negotiate a plea agreement	Barrera-Garrido: counsel pressured him into a nonadvantageous plea and did not negotiate	State/District: record shows a negotiated plea—dismissal of sexual-assault count—and Barrera-Garrido acknowledged benefit	Held: Record refutes coercion/failure to negotiate; no hearing required
Whether alleged failures satisfy Strickland prejudice prong for plea cases	Barrera-Garrido: would have gone to trial but for counsel’s errors	State/District: no objective evidence or reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial given plea colloquy and benefit received	Held: Self-serving assertions insufficient; prejudice not shown; relief denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (failure to advise on immigration consequences can establish Strickland deficiency; prejudice still required)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 (2016) (appellate review de novo where movant failed to allege sufficient facts or record shows no relief)
State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (2017) (prejudice standard and review postconviction denials without hearing)
State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 (2015) (for plea-based claims, prejudice shown if defendant would have insisted on trial)
State v. Harrison, 293 Neb. 1000 (2016) (no hearing required where motion alleges only conclusions or record shows no relief)
State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467 (2014) (postconviction is first opportunity to raise ineffective-assistance claims when no direct appeal filed)
State v. Yos-Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (2011) (self-serving statements that defendant would have gone to trial are insufficient without objective evidence)