State v. Determan
292 Neb. 557
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Aaron L. Determan pled guilty to unlawful manufacture/distribution of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 8–10 years.
- Determan filed a postconviction motion alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to file a direct appeal and (2) several other failures at sentencing and in advice/objections.
- The district court granted an evidentiary hearing only on the direct-appeal claim and denied the remaining ineffective-assistance claims as meritless.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals vacated the denial of the other claims and remanded, relying on State v. Seeger and instructing that courts should decide the direct-appeal claim (and hold any necessary hearing) before addressing other postconviction claims.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review to resolve what procedure district courts must follow when a postconviction motion alleges both a failure to file a direct appeal and other ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals’ procedure: district courts must first decide the direct-appeal claim and enter a final order on that claim alone (allowing appeal of any denial). Only after that claim is resolved or the appeal period expires may the district court consider the remaining claims. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ disposition and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district courts must decide a postconviction claim that counsel failed to file a direct appeal before other ineffective-assistance claims | Determan: courts should resolve the direct-appeal claim first; if granted, other claims may be premature | State: ordering this sequence risks forcing multiple appeals or causing loss of appeal rights because partial denials are final and appealable | Court: adopt a modified procedure — decide and enter final order on the direct-appeal claim first (allowing immediate appeal); only after resolution or appeal period expiration address remaining claims |
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred by vacating district court’s denial of other claims and remanding | Determan: Court of Appeals properly vacated and remanded per Seeger | State: Court of Appeals created an incorrect/new procedural rule and should not have vacated/remanded | Court: affirmed Court of Appeals’ disposition and remand; clarified procedural rule and applied it to cases pending on direct review |
| Whether multiple appeals from parts of one postconviction motion are acceptable | Determan: judicial economy favors deferring other claims until direct-appeal claim resolved | State: multiple appeals are problematic and risk defendants losing rights; finality rules matter | Court: agrees single-appeal economy is desirable but protects defendants’ appeal rights by allowing immediate appeal of denial of direct-appeal claim |
| Applicability/retroactivity of the procedural rule | State: rule is newly adopted and should be prospective only | Determan: rule applies to this case | Court: rule applies to criminal cases still pending on direct review; not purely prospective here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seeger, 20 Neb. App. 225 (Neb. App. 2012) (court outlined procedure favoring resolution of direct-appeal claim before other claims)
- State v. Caddy, 262 Neb. 38 (Neb. 2001) (addresses effect of granting new direct appeal on other postconviction claims)
- State v. Robinson, 287 Neb. 606 (Neb. 2014) (an order granting some evidentiary hearings and denying others is final and appealable as to those denied)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2004) (new criminal rules apply to cases still pending on direct review)