State v. Barrera-Garrido, 296 Neb. 647

Background

In 2014 Arturo Barrera-Garrido pled no contest to first‑degree false imprisonment and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; a separate first‑degree sexual assault charge was dismissed.
The State presented a factual basis: Barrera‑Garrido allegedly held his then‑girlfriend (M.C.) captive overnight, threatened her with a knife, struck and choked her, and either forced or coerced oral sex; police later found a knife in the patrol cruiser.
The district court accepted the pleas, found they were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and later sentenced Barrera‑Garrido to consecutive prison terms.
In a 2015 postconviction motion Barrera‑Garrido alleged several instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel: inadequate explanation of charges/evidence, failure to investigate or pursue witnesses/defenses (including self‑defense), coercion to plead and failure to negotiate a plea, and inadequate advice about consequences.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the plea colloquy and the record refuted or failed to support his allegations.
Barrera‑Garrido appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding his allegations did not show prejudice or provide objective facts warranting an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel failed to adequately explain charges/evidence	Barrera‑Garrido says counsel did not fully explain charges or evidence, so his plea was not knowing	Record shows court explained charges, State presented factual basis, and he said he understood and had no questions	Court held plea colloquy and record negate prejudice; no hearing required
Whether counsel failed to investigate/pursue witnesses or defenses	Counsel failed to interview witnesses and pursue a self‑defense theory based on alleged threats by M.C.’s family	Allegations lack specifics (no witness names or what they would say) and offer no plausible theory tying self‑defense to the charged conduct	Court held allegations are conclusory; no evidentiary hearing warranted
Whether counsel failed to negotiate or coerced plea	Barrera‑Garrido claims counsel pressured him and didn’t negotiate a favorable plea	Record demonstrates a negotiated arrangement: two pleas in exchange for dismissal of the sexual assault count; Barrera‑Garrido acknowledged benefit	Court held record refutes coercion/failure to negotiate; no hearing needed
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on these claims	Barrera‑Garrido sought a hearing to develop facts supporting ineffective assistance	State argued the files and plea colloquy affirmatively show no relief is due	Court applied Strickland/Padilla standards and Nebraska authorities; held the motion alleged conclusions and the record showed no prejudice, so no hearing was required

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (failure to advise on immigration consequences can satisfy deficient‑performance prong; prejudice still required)
State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 (prejudice standard for plea‑based ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (postconviction review standards and prejudice analysis)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 (de novo review of sufficiency of postconviction allegations)
State v. Harrison, 293 Neb. 1000 (no hearing required when motion alleges only conclusions or record shows no relief)
State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467 (timing/first opportunity to raise ineffective assistance on postconviction)
State v. Yos‑Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (self‑serving claims a defendant would have gone to trial insufficient to require hearing)