State v. Dixon, 835 N.W.2d 643

Dixon, indigent, pled no contest to unauthorized use of a financial device; public defender appointed; Robak sought limited appearance; court found limited appearance a nullity due to representation by public defender; Dixon requested time to hire Robak, granted continuance; Robak withdrew limited appearance; August 30, 2012 plea and sentencing on same day amid enhancement hearing; enhancement used prior convictions to habitual-criminal sentence; Dixon timely appealed.
Robak’s limited appearance was contested; court refused to permit it, affirming Dixon remained represented by the public defender.
Dixon argued Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice was violated by prohibiting Robak; Dixon claimed ineffective assistance for not appealing the limited-appearance denial; Dixon claimed sentencing on the plea day violated protections given unresolved post-conviction matters.
The district court ultimately convicted and sentenced Dixon to 10 to 20 years; Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court affirmed on review.
No fundamental change in representation occurred; Robak’s limited appearance was properly deemed a nullity; Dixon remained represented by public defender throughout; sentencing on the plea day was not reversible where invited by Dixon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel of choosing and limited appearance	Dixon claims denial of chosen counsel via Robak	Dixon was indigent; limited appearance invalid since Dixon was represented	No error; limited appearance nullity; right to counsel not violated.
Effectiveness of counsel for failure to appeal	Public defender ineffective for not appealing denial	No deficiency; limited appearance invalid; no adverse effect shown	No reversible error; no prejudice shown.
Sentence timing and post-plea proceedings	Issues could affect enhancement but were unresolved	Dixon invited the sentencing; timing proper	Sentence affirmed; invitation doctrine governs.

State v. Scheffert, 279 Neb. 479 (2010) (ineffective-assistance claim requires Strickland standard; appellate review of law and fact)
State v. Moyer, 271 Neb. 776 (2006) (ineffective assistance framework; two-pronged test)
State v. Bustos, 230 Neb. 524 (1988) (appointment of counsel; continued representation rules)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309 (2010) (limited appearance issues; discretion and withdrawal considerations)
State v. Neal, 231 Neb. 415 (1989) (continuance to hire counsel; delay considerations)
State v. Al-Zubaidy, 263 Neb. 595 (2002) (plea timing and sentencing considerations)
Norwest Bank Neb. v. Bowers, 246 Neb. 83 (1994) (invited-error doctrine; cannot complain of invited error)