State v. Hubbard, A-16-060

Ray L. Hubbard was charged with second-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person after a 2014 altercation that resulted in Liggins being shot and killed.
On October 9, 2015, Hubbard pleaded no contest to amended manslaughter (Count I) and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person (Count III); the State dismissed other counts and related charges and did not seek habitual-criminal enhancement.
The plea colloquy established a factual basis, Hubbard’s prior qualifying convictions for prohibited-person status, and that Hubbard understood rights and penalties (including that Count III carried a mandatory minimum).
Hubbard moved to withdraw his pleas, claiming misunderstanding of penalties and that he felt pressured; the district court denied the motion.
On December 16, 2015, Hubbard was sentenced to 18–20 years for manslaughter and 18–20 years for the prohibited-weapons offense, to run consecutively; both within statutory limits.
Hubbard appealed, asserting (1) wrongful denial of plea-withdrawal, (2) excessive sentences, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying motion to withdraw plea	Hubbard: plea not knowing/voluntary; misunderstood penalties; felt pressured	State: plea colloquy shows Hubbard knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered plea; no fair and just reason to withdraw	Denial affirmed — record shows sufficient colloquy and understanding; no abuse of discretion
Whether sentences imposed were excessive	Hubbard: court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (background, family losses, accident-related mental disturbance)	State: court considered required factors and PSI; sentences within statutory limits and appropriate given violent record	Sentences affirmed — within statutory limits; no abuse of discretion
Whether counsel was ineffective for recommending plea	Hubbard: counsel’s recommendation led to a large sentence though trial could've exonerated him	State: plea substantially benefited Hubbard (reduction from Class IB murder to Class III manslaughter; dismissal of other counts and habitual status)	Claim rejected — counsel’s performance not shown deficient and no prejudice demonstrated
Whether the plea colloquy satisfied legal requirements (nature, rights, penalties, factual basis)	Hubbard: lacked understanding of penalties and consequences	State: record shows explicit advisements and Hubbard’s express acknowledgments	Held: Colloquy sufficient; defendant understood rights and penalties

State v. DeJong, 292 Neb. 305, 872 N.W.2d 275 (standard for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims is mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Trice, 292 Neb. 482, 874 N.W.2d 286 (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits for abuse of discretion)
State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172, 859 N.W.2d 305 (burden on defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence grounds to withdraw plea; plea-colloquy requirements)
State v. Casillas, 279 Neb. 820, 782 N.W.2d 882 (appropriateness of sentence is a subjective judgment)
State v. Watt, 285 Neb. 647, 832 N.W.2d 459 (factors to be considered at sentencing)
State v. Thurman, 273 Neb. 518, 730 N.W.2d 805 (sentencing considerations)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Casares, 291 Neb. 150, 864 N.W.2d 667 (application of Strickland in Nebraska)