State v. Jaeger, 311 Neb. 69

Background

Roger Jaeger, a middle‑school teacher, was found to possess hundreds of child pornography images after taking his laptop for repair; police executed a search and interviewed Jaeger at the school, and the police report states Miranda warnings were given before questioning and Jaeger admitted long‑term possession/viewing.
Jaeger pleaded no contest to four counts of possession of child pornography (two counts dismissed), after a plea colloquy in which he denied threats or promises induced his plea; the court ordered a PSI and psychosexual evaluation.
At sentencing the court relied on the PSI/psychosexual report, rejected defense requests for probation based on statements in the PSI and the interview, and imposed concurrent 10–20 year prison terms and sex‑offender registration.
Jaeger appealed his sentence (summarily affirmed) and then filed a pro se verified motion for postconviction relief alleging multiple ineffective‑assistance claims and a Fifth Amendment violation from use of PSI/psychosexual statements.
The district court denied the verified postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, treating an unverified responsive filing as nonoperative; Jaeger appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Jaeger’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not considering Jaeger’s unverified responsive filing when deciding entitlement to an evidentiary hearing	The court should have considered his March 24 unverified “Response to State’s Response” because it supplied additional factual allegations warranting a hearing	Only the verified postconviction motion is the operative filing; unverified response did not amend the motion and need not be considered	No error: the responsive filing was not part of the operative verified motion and the court properly declined to treat it as an amendment
Whether pleas were involuntary because counsel allegedly induced plea by claiming risk of federal prosecution (or by misstating options)	Counsel advised Jaeger state court was better and warned the case could go federal; Jaeger says that advice/coercion induced his plea	Even if prosecutor threatened federal referral, threatening prosecution when facts warrant does not make a plea involuntary; counsel’s advice about federal referral was not shown to be objectively unreasonable	No error: plea not shown involuntary and verified motion lacked facts showing counsel was deficient or prejudice established
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate timing of Miranda advisement and failing to move to suppress interview statements	Counsel failed to investigate whether Miranda warnings were given only after the interview; Jaeger would have insisted on trial if suppressible	The verified motion did not allege facts showing custodial interrogation, what an investigation would have uncovered, or that a suppression motion had merit	No error: allegations were vague/conclusory; counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim and motion failed to allege facts establishing custody or likely suppression success
Whether court violated Fifth Amendment by ordering psychosexual evaluation and using it at sentencing	Jaeger argued PSI/psychosexual statements were used against him in violation of the privilege	This claim was not asserted as ineffective assistance and could have been raised on direct appeal	Procedurally barred in postconviction and denied without a hearing
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to recuse the trial judge for alleged bias	Jaeger alleged pattern of judge conduct showing partiality (media coverage, prior civil rulings, bond‑hearing conduct)	Judicial rulings and prior adverse rulings do not by themselves show bias; Jaeger bore heavy burden to show objective appearance of partiality	No error: alleged facts did not overcome presumption of judicial impartiality, so counsel was not deficient for failing to move to recuse
Whether counsel was ineffective on direct appeal by not consulting Jaeger or raising requested issues	Jaeger said counsel excluded him from selecting appellate issues and filed without his review	Jones v. Barnes allows counsel to select issues; Jaeger did not identify specific meritorious issues counsel omitted	No error: allegations were conclusory and failed to identify specific omitted assignments of error that would show deficiency or prejudice

Key Cases Cited

State v. Munoz, 309 Neb. 285, 959 N.W.2d 806 (2021) (standard for when evidentiary hearing is required on postconviction motion)
State v. Britt, 310 Neb. 69, 963 N.W.2d 533 (2021) (postconviction pleading specificity required to justify evidentiary hearing)
State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. 633, 920 N.W.2d 246 (2018) (motions that allege only conclusions without supporting facts do not merit evidentiary hearings)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appellate counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue; strategic selection by counsel is recognized)
State v. Abdulkadir, 293 Neb. 560, 878 N.W.2d 390 (2016) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel and plea voluntariness)
State v. Dean, 264 Neb. 42, 645 N.W.2d 528 (2002) (postconviction claims that fail to specify particular appellate errors present only conclusory allegations)
State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932, 898 N.W.2d 318 (2017) (counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise meritless arguments)
State v. Reddick, 230 Neb. 218, 430 N.W.2d 542 (1988) (threat or promise of lawful prosecution does not make a plea involuntary)