State v. Magallanes, A-15-1086

Background

In Nov. 2009 Magallanes was stopped after briefly crossing the fog line; he consented to a vehicle search that uncovered methamphetamine and cocaine. Federal prosecutors indicted but the federal district court granted suppression and dismissed the federal indictment. The State refiled state charges.
In state court Magallanes filed three suppression motions; the district court held evidentiary hearings, received federal-court pleadings for argument, and denied suppression, finding the stop supported by probable cause under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,142.
After a bench trial Magallanes was convicted of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and cocaine; tax-stamp convictions were later reversed. Sentences were imposed concurrently.
On direct appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the denial of suppression, interpreting § 60-6,142 to prohibit any crossing of the fog line onto the shoulder and finding the stop lawful.
Magallanes filed postconviction relief asserting trial- and appellate-counsel ineffectiveness and trial-court error (including that the state court should have taken judicial notice of and deferred to the federal-court suppression ruling); the district court denied relief and denied appointed counsel.
On appeal from denial of his amended postconviction motion, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed: the postconviction claims were either procedurally barred or without merit, and appointment of counsel was not required because no justiciable issues remained.

Issues

Issue	Magallanes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by denying amended postconviction motion without evidentiary hearing	Court should have granted hearing because counsel was ineffective for not securing judicial notice/deference to federal suppression ruling and other claims merited factfinding	Claims were procedurally barred or meritless on the record; federal decisions interpreting state law are not binding on state courts	Affirmed — no hearing required: claims were procedurally barred or failed to allege facts entitling relief
Whether state court should have taken judicial notice of federal-court suppression orders	State court should have taken judicial notice and deferred to federal court's interpretation of § 60-6,142	Federal court's interpretation of state law is not binding on Nebraska courts; taking judicial notice would not change outcome	Denied — federal court rulings on state law are not binding; no prejudice shown from counsel's failure to seek judicial notice
Whether counsel (trial/appellate) was ineffective for failing to raise/defer to federal ruling	Counsel ineffective for not asking state court to accept federal ruling or for not assigning that issue on appeal	Counsel's performance not deficient because federal decision had no binding effect on state court; no reasonable probability of different outcome	Denied — Strickland not satisfied; no prejudice shown
Whether appointment of counsel was required for postconviction proceedings	Requested counsel to investigate/amend claims and secure hearing	Court has discretion; counsel not required where petition raises no justiciable issues	Denied — not an abuse of discretion because amended motion raised no justiciable issues

Key Cases Cited

State v. Magallanes, 284 Neb. 871 (Neb. 2012) (upholding state-court suppression ruling and interpreting § 60-6,142)
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992) (state courts are ultimate expositors of state law)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (state courts interpret state-law questions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937 (Neb. 2016) (procedural bars in postconviction proceedings)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (Neb. 2016) (standard for evidentiary hearings in postconviction proceedings)