State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406

Background

On Oct. 27, 2015, Garcia handed a bank teller a note reading “THIS IS A ROBBERY PUT THE MONEY ON THE COUNTER”; teller complied and $3,579 was taken.
Police identified the getaway vehicle by plate, traced it to Kelli Allison, and obtained a search warrant for Garcia’s motel room (warrant sometimes misnamed the suspect “Gomez”).
The warrant search of the room did not produce the robbery note. Garcia was later stopped, fled, was arrested for driving under suspension and fleeing, and taken to headquarters.
At headquarters officers removed Garcia’s property prior to an interview and found the folded note in an envelope on his person; the note was admitted at trial.
Two forensic psychiatric reports found Garcia competent to stand trial and competent for sentencing; the jury convicted him of robbery and he was sentenced to 6–10 years’ imprisonment.
On appeal Garcia challenged admission of the note (Fourth Amendment), competency findings, sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, cumulative error, and sentence excessiveness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admission of robbery note (Fourth Amendment)	Search/seizure of note at headquarters was unlawful and note should have been suppressed	Stops, arrest, and search were lawful; removal of property was an inventory search under policy (or incident to arrest)	Note admissible: searches/stops valid; discovery justified as inventory search (and/or inevitable discovery); suppression denied
Competency to stand trial and for sentencing	Court erred in finding Garcia competent given courtroom outbursts and alleged active mental illness	Two forensic reports found Garcia competent; behavior was defiant but not sufficient to show incompetence	Competency findings upheld; reports and record provided sufficient support
Sufficiency of evidence for robbery conviction	Insufficient proof of force or putting in fear	Note and teller’s testimony that he froze, feared for safety, and complied support robbery-by-fear	Conviction affirmed: objective-context test shows defendant’s conduct would place a reasonable person in fear
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to seek independent mental-health opinion, failed to move for mistrial after disruptions, presented no meaningful defense, and failed to raise speedy-trial dismissal	Record lacks specifics for some claims; speedy-trial periods were excludable; some claims not reviewable on direct appeal and others insufficiently pleaded	Mixed: two claims preserved for postconviction review (insufficient record now); failure-to-raise-speedy-trial claim fails on the record; other claims not sufficiently particular or reviewable on direct appeal
Excessive sentence	Court ignored mitigating factors (mental health, low-violence nature)	Court considered relevant aggravating/mitigating factors and Garcia’s violent criminal history; sentence within statutory range	Sentence (6–10 years) not excessive; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Seckinger, 301 Neb. 963 (Neb. 2018) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework)
State v. Bowers, 250 Neb. 151 (Neb. 1996) (reasonable suspicion for stop when vehicle lacks plates/in-transit tags)
State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226 (Neb. 1996) (inventory searches after arrest permissible)
State v. Filkin, 242 Neb. 276 (Neb. 1993) (inventory searches judged by reasonableness and routine)
State v. Nunez, 299 Neb. 340 (Neb. 2018) (inventory search principles for vehicles and policy compliance)
State v. Martinez, 295 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2016) (standard for appellate review of competency findings)
State v. McCurdy, 301 Neb. 343 (Neb. 2018) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228 (Neb. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1983) (permitting inventory searches of arrestee effects)