State v. Combs, 955 N.W.2d 322

Patrick Combs was convicted (theft, attempted theft, abuse of a vulnerable adult) and sentenced to 5 years’ probation in March–May 2018; no direct appeal was filed.
Combs filed a postconviction motion alleging trial counsel Robert Creager was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal after being directed to do so.
Correspondence showed Creager emailed billing offering an appeal flat-fee arrangement ($10,000 with a $5,000 down payment); Combs emailed he was "inclined" to appeal and said he would send $5,000.
Combs and Creager spoke June 8, 2018; Combs testified he told Creager to appeal, Creager testified Combs said he needed to consult his wife and that Creager asked Combs to confirm by June 11.
A $5,000 check was received by Creager’s bookkeeper on June 11 (no cancelled check in record); Combs called June 14 after the appeal deadline and then filed the postconviction motion.
The district court credited Creager’s testimony over Combs’, found Creager had consulted and was not instructed to file, and denied relief; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel failed to file appeal after being requested	Combs: he told Creager on June 8 to file an appeal	Creager: no directive received; asked Combs to confirm by June 11	Court credited Creager; no clear error; no deficient performance
Counsel failed to follow up to obtain an express directive	Combs: Creager should have followed up before deadline	Creager: he consulted, urged a timely decision; cannot force a client to decide	No duty to force response; consultation sufficed; not deficient
Counsel failed to file after receiving $5,000 payment	Combs: payment showed intent to appeal and required filing	Creager: purpose of payment unclear; no record proof it was for appeal; consultation still required	Payment alone was not an "express instruction"; not deficient

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (counsel must consult about appeal; failure to file after a request presumes prejudice)
State v. Dalton, 307 Neb. 465 (Nebraska decision applying Roe/Strickland consultation and express‑instruction principles)