State v. Fernando-Granados, 854 N.W.2d 920

In 2003 Luis Fernando-Granados was convicted after a bench trial of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Evidence at trial included Fernando-Granados’ confession, victim’s personal effects found in his apartment, DNA/forensic links, tire and footprint matches, and testimony from his live-in girlfriend tying him to the robbery/murder.
In 2012 Fernando-Granados filed a postconviction motion alleging 24 instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to investigate and interview four potential witnesses who might implicate another suspect, Michael Puzynski.
Proposed witness testimony would have alleged Puzynski threatened the victim, said he ‘‘wished she was dead,’’ had a car similar to the crime scene vehicle, and was under investigation for theft of the victim’s frequent-flier miles.
The district court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Fernando-Granados appealed only the denial as to four failure-to-investigate claims; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the record affirmatively showed no prejudice given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on postconviction claims that trial counsel failed to investigate/interview witnesses who could implicate another suspect	Fernando-Granados: the four witnesses would have testified that Puzynski threatened the victim, had motive and opportunity, and thus counsel’s failure prejudiced the defense	State/District Court: allegations are conclusory or, even if true, would not create reasonable probability of a different outcome given overwhelming evidence against Fernando-Granados	Held: Affirmed. No evidentiary hearing required because files and records show no prejudice; proposed testimony would not undermine confidence in the verdict
Whether the postconviction pleadings alleged sufficient nonconclusory facts to require an evidentiary hearing	Fernando-Granados: provided specifics about who would testify and substance of their testimony	State/District Court: pleadings did not raise facts that would negate defendant’s culpability or create reasonable probability of different outcome	Held: Court treated allegations as insufficient to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland and denied hearing

State v. Fernando-Granados, 268 Neb. 290 (Neb. 2004) (direct-appeal decision recounting trial facts and affirming convictions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Poe, 284 Neb. 750 (Neb. 2012) (postconviction precedent on when failure-to-call witnesses or impeachment allegations warrant an evidentiary hearing)