State v. Manjikian
303 Neb. 100
Neb.2019Background
- Deputies stopped a vehicle in Lancaster County; two passengers were Manjikian (passenger) and driver Conrado; officers detected marijuana odor and observed furtive movements.
- Search uncovered two baggies of methamphetamine (one appearing emptied into a drink), marijuana cigarettes, and $234,956 concealed in resealed brownie mix cans; Conrado had $11,300 and Manjikian had $376 on his person.
- Manjikian admitted possession of what he called "Adderall," later confirmed as methamphetamine. He was initially charged with a Class IV felony for possession of a controlled substance.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Manjikian pled no contest to attempted possession of a controlled substance, a Class I misdemeanor, and agreed in writing to forfeit any interest in the $234,956; the plea form expressly waived double jeopardy claims and certain forfeiture procedural rights.
- The district court accepted the plea after colloquy, found it voluntary and knowing, and sentenced Manjikian to 180 days’ imprisonment; Manjikian appealed, raising claims about the plea, double jeopardy, sentencing, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Manjikian's Argument | State's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent | Court failed to advise that plea waived right to appeal adverse pretrial rulings and appellate counsel/costs | Court complied with Nebraska plea-admonition requirements; no additional advisals required | Plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; no ABA Standard adoption |
| Whether accepting plea violated Double Jeopardy | Forfeiture plus criminal prosecution (or acceptance of plea post-forfeiture) amounts to multiple punishment barred by double jeopardy (relies on Spotts/Franco) | Manjikian expressly waived double jeopardy in plea; State also later argued possible abandonment of money | Waiver effective; double jeopardy claim dismissed without reaching statutory-revision issues |
| Whether sentence (180 days) was an abuse of discretion | Sentence relied on unsubstantiated presentence/prosecution comments; probation would be appropriate | Court considered presentence report and relevant factors; comments did not control sentence | Sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective | Counsel misadvised about strength of co-defendant's confession/testimony, out-of-state bias, possession inferences, and failed to file plea-in-bar on double jeopardy | Record shows Manjikian admitted possession; evidence and circumstances made conviction likely; waiver of double jeopardy signed; counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy | Ineffective assistance claim fails on the record; no prejudice shown and counsel’s performance was not deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (plea admonitions and voluntariness standards)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (federal plea colloquy procedures)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for same‑offense double jeopardy analysis)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (incorporation of double jeopardy protection against the states)
- State v. Franco, 257 Neb. 15 (1999) (forfeiture actions under § 28-431 are criminal in nature and may implicate double jeopardy)
- State v. Spotts, 257 Neb. 44 (1999) (reinforcing Franco and addressing cumulative forfeiture and criminal proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)