State v. Collins, 292 Neb. 602

Background

Collins pled no contest to first-degree sexual assault of his 12-year-old stepdaughter and was sentenced to 10–15 years’ imprisonment.
He filed a direct appeal but it was dismissed for failure to pay the docket fee (and no in forma pauperis status).
Collins filed a postconviction motion alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file a direct appeal and for multiple other omissions.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing only on the failure-to-appeal claim, granted relief as to that claim, and authorized a new direct appeal; it denied the other ineffective-assistance claims and Collins did not appeal that denial.
On the new direct appeal Collins challenged the sentence as excessive and raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, found the record adequate to reject only the claim that counsel failed to inform him of the Class II felony penalty, and declined to address the remaining counsel claims on direct appeal because they required an evidentiary record.

Issues

Issue	Collins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Excessive sentence	10–15 years is excessive given no prior criminal history	Sentence within statutory limits and properly considered aggravating factors	Affirmed — sentence not excessive; court considered appropriate factors
Counsel failed to inform of Class II felony penalty	Counsel did not properly advise Collins of potential penalty, prejudicing plea	Court accurately informed Collins of penalty at plea hearing; no prejudice from counsel	Rejected — record shows court informed Collins; no prejudice established
Other ineffective-assistance claims (failure to investigate/DNA testing, motions, coerced plea, etc.)	Trial counsel committed multiple omissions meriting relief	Procedural: these claims were denied below and Collins did not appeal that denial; alternatively, record insufficient to resolve on direct appeal	Not reached on direct appeal — record inadequate; claims require evidentiary hearing or were procedurally barred absent the unusual facts here
Jurisdiction/procedural bar over reconsidering denied postconviction claims	Collins argues district court should not have resolved non-appeal claims without procedure from Court of Appeals cases	State contends Collins is procedurally barred from relitigating claims he did not appeal from the district court order	Court declines to apply procedural bar here for claims that would have been part of the original lost appeal; proceeds to decide merits where record suffices and leaves other claims for evidentiary development

Key Cases Cited

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (indigent defendants entitled to appointed counsel on first appeal as of right)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (right to counsel in criminal prosecutions)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) (Douglas rule does not extend to discretionary appeals to a state’s highest court)
State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (2013) (factors and standard for reviewing whether a sentence within statutory limits is excessive)
State v. Jim, 275 Neb. 481 (2008) (district court power to grant a new direct appeal under postconviction statute)
State v. Determan, 22 Neb. App. 683 (2015) (procedural guidance for handling postconviction claims that include a lost direct appeal claim)
State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 (2015) (ineffective-assistance-on-direct-appeal standards and when evidentiary hearings are required)