State v. Beehn
927 N.W.2d 793
Neb.2019Background
- Nov. 24, 2012: altercation outside a Norfolk bar; Jordan Beehn struck Jose Zepada with a handgun and fatally shot Jorge Zepada, paralyzing him.
- Beehn was charged with multiple offenses including first-degree assault (Jorge), second-degree assault (Jose), firearm enhancements, tampering with a witness (letter to his wife), and bribery; ultimately pled no contest to first-degree assault and tampering with a witness.
- Plea (Dec. 2013): State dismissed remaining counts; court accepted plea and sentenced Beehn to concurrent 50–50 years and 12–12 months (aggregate 50–50 years).
- Direct appeal raised only excessive sentence; affirmed by Nebraska Court of Appeals.
- Postconviction: Beehn alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to advise re: self-defense/defense-of-others, failure to advise plea waived appeals of pretrial rulings, inadequate investigation/depositions, incorrect advice about spousal privilege, and appellate counsel’s failures). District court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief; Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Beehn's Argument | State/Defense Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to advise availability of self-defense / defense of others | Counsel never informed him these defenses existed / would have gone to trial if so informed | Counsel uniformly discussed and evaluated those defenses but found them unlikely to succeed given facts, inconsistent stories, and admissions (e.g., accidental discharge) | No deficient performance; counsel advised him and defenses were unlikely to succeed |
| Counsel failed to advise that plea waived appeals of pretrial rulings | He was not told pleas would waive appeals of adverse pretrial rulings | Counsel (Martin/McCarthy) advised that pleading would waive rights and pretrial appeals; plea colloquy covered waivers | No deficient performance; Beehn was advised and waived rights knowingly |
| Counsel failed to investigate/depose witnesses | Attorneys did not interview or depose many potential witnesses, including 10 added by State | Counsel obtained depositions/interviews, investigator searched for evidence (e.g., cameras); additional witnesses were jailhouse witnesses and unfavorable or detrimental; some interviews revealed harmful information (e.g., jail conduct, attempted witness payment) | No deficient performance; additional investigation would not have produced beneficial evidence or changed outcome |
| Counsel misadvised about spousal privilege (communications with wife) | Counsel told him communications with wife were privileged and not usable by State | Counsel repeatedly told Beehn not to discuss case; multiple attorneys testified they advised that spousal privilege likely did not apply; recorded call corroborates advice to avoid discussing case | No deficient performance; record shows counsel warned against communications and advised privilege likely inapplicable |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise trial counsel claims or to meet with Beehn | Appellate counsel should have raised ineffective-assistance claims and met with him | Appellate counsel reviewed record, concluded ineffective-assistance claims lacked merit, met with Beehn (via deputy), and offered new counsel option; even if deficient, no prejudice because district court entertained collateral claims and found them meritless | No prejudice; appellate representation not shown to have caused different result; postconviction hearing addressed claims and denied relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. McGuire, 299 Neb. 762 (review standards for postconviction and ineffective assistance)
- State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 (postconviction relief scope)
- State v. Yos-Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (consideration of likelihood of defense success in plea/prejudice analysis)
- State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 (justification / self-defense principles)
- State v. Barrera-Garrido, 296 Neb. 647 (self-serving declarations insufficient to show would have gone to trial)
- State v. Blank, 239 Neb. 188 (prejudice requirement post-Strickland)
