State v. Lee, 290 Neb. 601

Donald M. Lee was charged in district court by information on November 3, 2008, with first‑degree murder; he pleaded no contest to second‑degree murder on May 19, 2009, and was sentenced to 70 years to life.
Lee filed a postconviction motion asserting (1) statutory speedy‑trial violations, (2) Sixth Amendment violations, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to assert speedy‑trial rights.
On initial review the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding continuances tolled the speedy‑trial period; this court remanded because the record lacked certified files showing the continuances’ dates and durations.
On remand the district court held an evidentiary hearing limited to defense counsel Robert Lindemeier’s deposition; Lindemeier testified he requested three continuances with Lee’s verbal consent to take depositions, obtain DNA results, hire investigators/experts, and pursue a suppression motion and plea negotiations.
The district court found the continuances tolled 111 days, leaving 84 days chargeable to the State under the 180‑day statute, and thus denied postconviction relief; Lee appealed, arguing denial of speedy trial and Sixth Amendment error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lee 27s statutory speedy‑trial right was violated (and counsel ineffective for not asserting it)	Lee: speedy trial clock began July 18, 2008; more than 180 days elapsed before plea, so counsel was ineffective	State/District Court: operative date is Nov 3, 2008 (filing of information); continuances (with Lee 27s consent) tolled 111 days, leaving only 84 days chargeable	Court: No violation; record supports tolling and counsel not ineffective; judgment affirmed
Whether the district court abused discretion by failing to address Sixth Amendment claims	Lee: Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial also violated and not adequately considered	State: evidentiary hearing and findings addressed speedy‑trial issues; no additional Sixth Amendment showing	Court: No clear error; district court adequately resolved the claim on remand and did not abuse discretion

State v. McLeod, 274 Neb. 566 (Neb. 2007) (standard for reviewing postconviction findings)
State v. Amaya, 276 Neb. 818 (Neb. 2008) (postconviction review may consider ineffective‑assistance claims attacking a guilty plea)
State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 (Neb. 2015) (prejudice standard when conviction follows a guilty plea)
State v. Lee, 282 Neb. 652 (Neb. 2011) (prior remand holding that district court record lacked certification of continuances)
State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500 (Neb. 2014) (appellate court defers to factfinder on credibility and weighing of evidence)