State v. Blaha, 303 Neb. 415

Background

In March 2017 Ryan W. Blaha was charged with eight counts, including first-degree assault and use of a deadly weapon; in July 2018 he pleaded no contest to those two counts under a plea agreement dismissing the rest.
At the plea hearing the district court advised Blaha of maximum sentences and that the court would impose sentence; a factual basis was recited by the State describing the shooting and related evidence.
At sentencing the court reviewed the presentence investigation report, heard argument, and considered Blaha’s youth and mental illness but focused on the offense gravity and violence; it imposed consecutive terms: 30–40 years (assault) and 15–30 years (weapon).
Blaha appealed claiming (1) sentences were excessive and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise sentencing ranges, failing to correct inaccuracies in the factual basis, failing to litigate pretrial matters, and failing to let him review the presentence report.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the record conclusively resolves those ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal and whether the sentences (within statutory limits) amounted to an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Blaha)	Defendant's Argument (State / Court)	Held
Excessive sentence	Sentences within statutory limits can still be excessive; court failed to adequately consider sentencing factors	Court considered relevant factors (including youth and mental illness) and reviewed the presentence report; within discretion	No abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed
Consideration of dismissed-charge facts	Court improperly relied on facts underlying dismissed charges	Trial court may consider a wide range of information, including conduct underlying dismissed counts	Permissible; not improper factor
Failure to advise statutory ranges / promise of 12–20 yrs	Trial counsel guaranteed 12–20 years and did not advise of statutory maxima, causing plea prejudice	District court informed Blaha of maximums, consecutive nature, and that court decides sentence; Blaha denied promises	Record refutes claim; no ineffective assistance
Inaccuracies in factual basis	Prosecutor misstated informant name and alleged video evidence; counsel failed to correct, so plea lacked reliable factual basis	Misstated name was corrected and immaterial; alleged video was surplusage and not essential to elements	No prejudice; factual basis sufficient; claim fails
Lack of pretrial litigation	Counsel was ineffective for not filing motions (e.g., suppression) or deposing witnesses during 16 months	Appellant gave no specific facts to show viable suppression grounds or what depositions would have produced	Insufficiently specific; claim fails on direct appeal
Failure to allow review of presentence report	Counsel received report but didn’t review it with Blaha; report contains harmful characterizations	Record contains no statement by Blaha that he asked to review or was denied; absence of record leaves claim unresolved on direct appeal	Record insufficient to resolve claim on direct review; not reached substantively

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Decker, 261 Neb. 382 (2001) (Nebraska recognizes that a sentence within statutory limits can still be excessive in rare cases)
State v. Janis, 207 Neb. 491 (1980) (trial judge has wide discretion regarding sources and types of information for sentencing)
State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019) (standards for evaluating ineffective assistance and sentence review)
State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814 (1986) (requirement that record support factual basis for plea)
State v. Moyer, 271 Neb. 776 (2006) (review of claims that counsel failed to disclose presentence report; record adequacy for direct review)
State v. McDermott, 267 Neb. 761 (2004) (evidentiary hearing and record may resolve claims about counsel discussing presentence report)