State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249

Background

Dammon T. Haynes pled no contest to stalking (second offense), terroristic threats, and witness tampering in two consolidated cases; other related charges were dismissed as part of plea deals.
A competency evaluation admitted at plea hearing found Haynes competent; the court conducted a plea colloquy and accepted no-contest pleas as knowing and voluntary.
The State introduced prior convictions and a PSI documenting an extensive history of domestic-violence–related arrests; the court imposed enhanced prison terms (habitual-offender enhancement applied to two counts).
Haynes appealed; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed but vacated enhancement on the stalking count as to application, which was practically harmless given concurrent sentences.
Haynes later filed a pro se postconviction motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate, to discuss discovery, not deposing the victim, failing to challenge administrative confinement/mail restrictions, and sentencing errors), and asked for counsel and an evidentiary hearing.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel, finding Haynes’ allegations largely conclusory, refuted by the record (plea colloquy, competency finding), or insufficiently specific to show prejudice. Haynes appealed.

Issues

Issue	Haynes’ Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel causing involuntary/no-contest pleas	Counsel failed to investigate, review discovery, interview witnesses or the victim, discuss plea consequences, and thus Haynes would have insisted on trial	Allegations are conclusory, lack specific facts showing what evidence would have been found or how outcome would change; plea colloquy and record refute claims	Denied — allegations insufficiently specific; self-serving assertions without objective facts fail to raise a reasonable probability Haynes would have gone to trial
Counsel failed to challenge administrative confinement and mail seizure which impeded defense	Restrictions on phone/mail prevented contacting witnesses and counsel, hampering preparation and rendering plea involuntary	No facts showing counsel could have successfully challenged DOC decisions or that counsel was prevented from communicating; no specific evidence of prejudice	Denied — claims speculative, inadequately pleaded, and refuted by record; no viable motion shown
Sentencing error: improper habitual-criminal enhancement / void sentence for being a "habitual criminal"	Enhancement illegal because not all charges were amenable to enhancement; or he was effectively convicted/sentenced for the nonexistent crime of "being a habitual criminal"	Habitual status properly alleged to support enhancement of eligible counts; court did not convict or separately sentence Haynes for the nonexistent crime of being a habitual criminal	Denied — no merit: statute permits charging habitual status to enhance eligible counts; sentences were enhancements, not separate convictions for "being habitual"
Denial of appointment of postconviction counsel	Postconviction claims meritorious and required counsel and an evidentiary hearing	Motion contained no justiciable issues; appointment of counsel discretionary and not required when claims fail preliminarily	Denied — no abuse of discretion because the postconviction motion presented no justiciable issues warranting appointment or hearing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Determan, 292 Neb. 557 (discussing de novo review where record shows no entitlement to relief)
State v. McLeod, 274 Neb. 566 (postconviction counsel appointment standard and ineffective-assistance framework)
State v. Yos-Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (prejudice requirement in plea-context ineffective-assistance claims; objective evidence required)
Meyer v. Frakes, 294 Neb. 668 (holding a separate sentence for the nonexistent crime of being a habitual criminal is void)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (consideration of whether a defendant would have insisted on trial relevant to prejudice analysis in plea cases)
State v. Sepulveda, 278 Neb. 972 (plain error cannot be asserted in postconviction proceedings)