State v. Custer, 298 Neb. 279

In November 2012, Jason Custer shot and killed Adam McCormick after prior threats and confrontations; Custer was charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
A jury convicted Custer on all counts in January 2014; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
In May 2016 Custer filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and requested appointed counsel.
The State moved to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing; the district court denied postconviction relief and declined to appoint counsel.
Custer appealed the denial; the Supreme Court reviewed whether his postconviction motion alleged sufficient factual claims of constitutional error to require a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Custer)	Defendant's Argument (State/District Court)	Held
Ineffective assistance by cross‑examining pathologist (Schilke)	Counsel improperly highlighted methamphetamine levels, damaging defense	Cross‑examination showed McCormick had methamphetamine and supported self‑defense; no deficiency	No deficiency or prejudice; no relief
Ineffective assistance for impeachment of witness (Fields)	Counsel’s attempt to discredit Fields led Custer to change testimony and harmed defense	Even if impeachment was poor, inconsistencies related to events days before shooting were immaterial to self‑defense at the shooting	No prejudice shown; claim fails
Failure to call witness (Breen)	Breen would corroborate Custer’s original account and show counsel coerced testimony change	Custer pleaded only conclusions and failed to say what Breen would testify to that differed from existing accounts	Allegation too conclusory; no hearing warranted
Jury instructions and verdict form omissions	Counsel failed to secure proper self‑defense instructions and verdict forms	Jury instructions and forms sufficiently presented self‑defense option; other instruction complaints not raised below	Instructions adequate; no merit
Failure to appoint postconviction counsel	Postconviction stage was a critical stage requiring appointed counsel	No constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction; appointment discretionary and no justiciable issues existed	No abuse of discretion in denying appointment

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (2015) (direct appeal opinion describing trial facts and prior appellate disposition)
State v. Watson, 295 Neb. 802 (2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of postconviction pleadings)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (2016) (postconviction relief pleading and proof requirements)
State v. Phelps, 286 Neb. 89 (2013) (no evidentiary hearing required where records show no relief)
State v. Miller, 281 Neb. 343 (2011) (issues concerning self‑defense instruction)
State v. Gonzales, 294 Neb. 627 (2016) (standards for evaluating prosecutorial comments in closing)
State v. Castillo‑Zamora, 289 Neb. 382 (2014) (rules on impeachment by prior convictions)
State v. McGhee, 280 Neb. 558 (2010) (no constitutional right to counsel in state postconviction proceedings)
State v. Silvers, 255 Neb. 702 (1998) (discretion not to appoint counsel when petition shows no justiciable issues)