Background - Dammon T. Haynes pled no contest to stalking (second offense), terroristic threats, and tampering with a witness in consolidated cases after a plea agreement dismissing other charges; the court found him competent after a psychiatric report and colloquy. - The State sought habitual‑criminal enhancement based on prior convictions; the court applied enhancement to terroristic threats and tampering counts and imposed lengthy prison terms (concurrent and consecutive sentences). - On direct appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the sentences as not excessive but vacated the habitual enhancement on the stalking count and remanded for correction. - Haynes filed a pro se postconviction motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate/discuss discovery, failure to depose/interview witnesses including the victim, failure to challenge administrative confinement and mail seizure, failure to challenge PSI investigator bias, and challenged habitual enhancement), and claimed his plea was involuntary. - The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel, concluding the allegations were largely conclusory, refuted by the record, or insufficiently specific to show prejudice. Haynes appealed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haynes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether Haynes alleged sufficient ineffective‑assistance claims to require an evidentiary hearing | Counsel failed to investigate/discuss discovery, interview/depose witnesses (including victim), challenge confinement/mail restrictions, and otherwise advise Haynes, so but for counsel’s errors he would have insisted on trial | Most allegations are conclusory, speculative, or refuted by the record (competency finding, plea colloquy, withdrawn deposition motion); no objective facts showing reasonable probability of going to trial | Denied — allegations insufficiently specific to warrant an evidentiary hearing; many claims refuted by record | | Whether administrative confinement and limited phone/mail access prejudiced Haynes or made plea involuntary | Confinement and restrictions impeded access to counsel, witnesses, and evidence (alibi) and affected mental state so plea was not knowing/voluntary | Haynes failed to identify specific, admissible evidence lost or show counsel could have meaningfully challenged DOC actions; competency and plea colloquy refute involuntariness | Denied — no facts alleged showing prejudice or incompetence; record shows competency and voluntary plea | | Whether sentencing contained a void conviction/sentence for the "crime" of being a habitual criminal | Haynes contends he was effectively convicted/sentenced for the nonexistent crime of "being a habitual criminal," making sentences void (relying on Meyer v. Frakes) | The habitual status was properly pled and used only to enhance sentences for underlying felonies, not as a separate crime or sentence | Denied — record shows enhancement only, not a separate conviction/sentence for being a habitual criminal | | Whether the district court abused discretion by denying appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings | Appointment needed because claims meritorious and complex | Appointment unnecessary because motion raised no justiciable issues and allegations lacked specificity showing entitlement to relief | Denied — no abuse of discretion; claims presented no justiciable issues warranting appointed counsel | ### Key Cases Cited State v. McLeod, 274 Neb. 566 (establishes ineffective assistance standard and counsel of ordinary skill benchmark) State v. Determan, 292 Neb. 557 (explains de novo review where motion allegations are conclusory or refuted by record) State v. Yos‑Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (plea‑context prejudice: reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial; self‑serving assertions insufficient) State v. Sepulveda, 278 Neb. 972 (plain error cannot be asserted in postconviction proceedings to raise trial court errors) Meyer v. Frakes, 294 Neb. 668 (holding that a separate sentence for the nonexistent crime of being a habitual criminal is void; used to distinguish proper vs. improper habitual handling) State v. Barnes, 272 Neb. 749 (postconviction relief is narrow; remedies limited to prejudicial constitutional violations)