State v. Barrera-Garrido, 296 Neb. 647

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’s factual basis described holding the victim overnight, threats with a knife, physical assaults, and an alleged forced oral sex incident; police found a knife in the patrol cruiser.
The district court accepted pleas, found them knowing and voluntary, and sentenced Barrera‑Garrido to consecutive prison terms.
In 2015 he filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in several respects: failure to explain charges/evidence, failure to investigate or call suggested witnesses and pursue a self‑defense theory, coercing him to plead, and failing to negotiate/advise on plea consequences.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the record (plea colloquy and case files) refuted or failed to support Barrera‑Garrido’s allegations.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the motion failed to allege facts that would overcome the plea record or show Strickland prejudice sufficient to require a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel failed to explain charges/evidence	Barrera‑Garrido: counsel did not adequately explain charges or evidence, so plea was unknowing	State: plea colloquy and court advisement show he understood charges and had no questions	Court: rejected — plea record rebuts claim; no prejudice shown
Whether counsel failed to investigate/pursue witnesses or self‑defense	Barrera‑Garrido: counsel didn’t interview witnesses he suggested or pursue self‑defense based on alleged threats	State: motion lacked names/facts showing what witnesses would say or how self‑defense would apply	Court: rejected — allegations conclusory; no plausible showing of prejudice
Whether counsel coerced him into plea / failed to negotiate	Barrera‑Garrido: counsel pressured him and didn’t negotiate a beneficial plea	State: record shows negotiated agreement (dismissal of sexual assault) and court asked if he understood benefit	Court: rejected — plea colloquy shows voluntary acceptance; self‑serving assertions insufficient
Whether denial without evidentiary hearing was error	Barrera‑Garrido: factual claims required a hearing to resolve credibility and prejudice	State: files and plea record affirmatively show no relief warranted	Court: denied — under Strickland standard, records showed no entitlement to relief; no hearing required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel’s failure to advise on immigration consequences can be Strickland deficiency; prejudice still required)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 (standard of review for postconviction sufficiency of allegations)
State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (prejudice requirement and appellate review in postconviction context)
State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 (prejudice from counsel error in plea cases evaluated by whether defendant would have insisted on trial)
State v. Harrison, 293 Neb. 1000 (no hearing required where motion alleges only conclusions or record shows no relief)
State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467 (postconviction timing/first opportunity to raise ineffective assistance)
State v. Yos‑Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (self‑serving claims that defendant would have gone to trial insufficient without objective evidence)