State v. Jaeger, 311 Neb. 69

Background

Jaeger, a middle‑school teacher, was found to possess thousands of images and videos of child pornography after a repair technician discovered them on his laptop; law enforcement executed a search and interviewed him at the school after reading Miranda rights per the police report.
Jaeger pleaded no contest to four counts of possession of child pornography (two counts dismissed), the court ordered a PSI and psychosexual evaluation, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 10–20 years and sex‑offender registration.
Jaeger’s direct appeal (challenging sentence excessiveness) was summarily affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Jaeger filed a verified postconviction motion pro se alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to investigate Miranda timing, misleading advice about federal prosecution, failure to seek recusal, inadequate sentencing advocacy, and deficient appellate representation) and that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by PSI/psychosexual statements.
The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, treating Jaeger’s later unverified response as non‑operative; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jaeger)	Defendant's Argument (State / District Court)	Held
Whether the district court erred by not considering Jaeger’s unverified response to the State and by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing	The court ignored material additional factual allegations in his response that warranted an evidentiary hearing	The operative filing is the verified postconviction motion; unverified supplemental filings do not amend the operative motion and need leave to amend	Affirmed: the court properly limited review to the verified operative motion; unverified response was not part of the operative motion
Whether counsel was ineffective for not investigating the timing of the Miranda advisement and thus failing to move to suppress	Counsel failed to investigate and would have continued to trial if a suppression motion were viable	Allegations were vague/conclusory, did not allege custody (required for Miranda), and did not identify facts an investigation would have produced to make suppression meritorious	Affirmed: insufficient specific factual allegations to show deficiency or prejudice; no custodial interrogation alleged
Whether counsel’s advice regarding potential federal prosecution rendered Jaeger’s plea involuntary or constituted deficient performance	Counsel misrepresented that the State would refer the case to federal prosecutors and coerced Jaeger into the plea	Even if such a referral threat was made, threat to prosecute where facts warrant is not coercive; counsel’s advice that state prosecution might be preferable is not deficient absent additional facts	Affirmed: claim fails—threat to refer to federal prosecutors would not void plea and motion lacked facts showing counsel was objectively unreasonable
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to recuse the judge, for allegedly poor sentencing advocacy, and for appellate representation (not presenting issues Jaeger requested)	Counsel failed to seek recusal despite pattern of judicial behavior, did not zealously advocate at sentencing, and excluded Jaeger from appellate issue selection	Judicial rulings alone do not show bias; alleged facts did not overcome presumption of impartiality; record shows counsel advocated for probation; Jones allows appellate counsel discretion and Jaeger gave no specifics	Affirmed: no reasonable basis to question judicial impartiality; sentencing advocacy supported by record; appellate decisions within counsel’s discretion and allegations were conclusory

Key Cases Cited

State v. Munoz, 309 Neb. 285, 959 N.W.2d 806 (2021) (appellate de novo review where district court denies postconviction relief without evidentiary hearing)
State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. 633, 920 N.W.2d 246 (2018) (postconviction motion must allege specific facts that, if proved, would constitute constitutional infringement to warrant an evidentiary hearing)
State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149, 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015) (operative postconviction filing is the verified motion; court need not consider claims raised only in other filings)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (appellate counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue requested by client; counsel has discretion to select issues)
State v. Abdulkadir, 293 Neb. 560, 878 N.W.2d 390 (2016) (two‑part Strickland standard—deficient performance and prejudice—applies to ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Britt, 310 Neb. 69, 963 N.W.2d 533 (2021) (discusses standards for when evidentiary hearings on postconviction claims are required)