State v. Jaeger, 311 Neb. 69

Background

Laptop taken to a repair shop revealed hundreds of pornographic files, several hundred identified as child pornography; law enforcement obtained a warrant and seized Jaeger’s devices at his school.
During a school conference-room interview, the officer read a Miranda warning (police report states it was read before questioning); Jaeger admitted long‑term possession of thousands of images and preference for middle/high‑school aged children.
Jaeger pleaded no contest to four counts of possession of child pornography under a plea agreement; the district court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) including a psychosexual evaluation and later sentenced Jaeger to concurrent 10–20 year terms.
Jaeger’s direct appeal (claiming excessive sentence) was summarily affirmed; he then filed a pro se verified postconviction motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and a Fifth Amendment violation based on PSI/psychosexual statements.
The verified motion raised claims that counsel failed to investigate the timing of the Miranda advisement or move to suppress, misadvised regarding potential federal prosecution (coercing the plea), failed to seek recusal of the judge, inadequately advocated at sentencing, and mishandled the direct appeal; the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
Jaeger also filed an unverified response to the State’s opposition attempting to add factual assertions; the district court did not treat that filing as an amendment to the operative verified motion.

Issues

Issue	Jaeger’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the district court should have considered Jaeger’s unverified responsive filing when deciding if an evidentiary hearing was required	Jaeger argued his unverified response supplemented factual allegations warranting a hearing	The response was not part of the operative verified motion and was unverified, so it should not be considered	Court: No error — only the verified operative motion controls; unverified response was not part of the motion and could not supply new postconviction allegations
Whether counsel’s advice about possible federal prosecution rendered Jaeger’s plea involuntary or was ineffective assistance	Jaeger claimed counsel falsely or misleadingly told him the State might refer the case to federal prosecutors, coercing the plea	State: Allegations are conclusory; threat to refer to federal authorities is lawful and would not render plea involuntary; counsel’s statements about federal jurisdiction are not deficient as a matter of law	Court: Denied — allegations insufficient to show deficient performance or involuntariness; threat to prosecute federally (if made) is not per se coercive
Whether counsel’s failure to investigate timing of Miranda advisement (and not moving to suppress) was ineffective assistance	Jaeger said counsel refused to investigate and thus accepted the police report and advised plea	State: Motion lacks specific facts showing warnings were given after interrogation or that interrogation was custodial; no factual basis that a suppression motion would have succeeded	Court: Denied — allegations were vague/conclusory; petitioner failed to allege custodial interrogation or facts showing a meritorious suppression claim
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to recuse the trial judge	Jaeger pointed to judge’s past rulings, bond handling, media coverage, and actions in a civil matter as showing bias	State: Allegations do not overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality; judicial rulings and prior involvement do not demonstrate disqualifying bias	Court: Denied — factual allegations insufficient to show objective basis to question impartiality; counsel not deficient for failing to make a meritless recusal motion
Whether counsel was ineffective on direct appeal by not consulting Jaeger or raising requested issues	Jaeger alleged counsel failed to meet, neglected his requested issues, and filed the appeal without his input	State: Claims are conclusory and do not identify specific omitted issues or show prejudice	Court: Denied — Jones v. Barnes does not require counsel to raise every nonfrivolous issue; motion lacked specifics to show deficient appellate advocacy

Key Cases Cited

State v. Munoz, 309 Neb. 285, 959 N.W.2d 806 (2021) (standard for de novo review of denial of postconviction relief without evidentiary hearing)
State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. 633, 920 N.W.2d 246 (2018) (requirements for when an evidentiary hearing is required on a postconviction motion)
State v. Britt, 310 Neb. 69, 963 N.W.2d 533 (2021) (postconviction evidentiary hearing principles)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appellate counsel not required to present every nonfrivolous issue requested by client)
State v. Abdulkadir, 293 Neb. 560, 878 N.W.2d 390 (2016) (two‑part Strickland standard applied to plea context and counsel performance presumption)
State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932, 898 N.W.2d 318 (2017) (counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise meritless arguments)
State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304, 893 N.W.2d 430 (2017) (judicial rulings generally do not constitute disqualifying bias)