State v. Marks
286 Neb. 166
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Marks convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm; life sentence plus 5–10 year term for firearm conviction.
- We affirmed the underlying convictions in Marks I, but vacated the firearm sentence twice and remanded to correct credit.
- Marks filed an amended postconviction relief motion with multiple ineffective-assistance and related claims.
- District court denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding claims lacked merit.
- Appellate review is independent and follows Strickland, requiring a showing of deficient performance and prejudice.
- Court affirms district court, finding no factual or legal basis to grant postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the postconviction court should have held an evidentiary hearing | Marks claims numerous allegations require live testimony | State argues allegations are conclusory or refuted by record | No; record refutes claims and no hearing required |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland | Trial counsel deficient; prejudice shown | No deficient performance or prejudice established | No; failure to show both deficient performance and prejudice |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising trial-counsel issues | Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising issues | Appellate counsel not shown to be ineffective given trial-counsel conclusion | No prejudice; no reversible error |
| Whether excused juror replacement violated due process for Marks’s absence | Trial counsel should have objected to absence | Presence not required when hearing would not be thwarted; alternate juror valid | Not error requiring relief; due process not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382 (Neb. 2012) (independent review of postconviction rulings; legal standard applied)
- State v. Watkins, 284 Neb. 742 (Neb. 2012) (de novo review of factual sufficiency in postconviction appeals)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1983) (defendant need not be present at all proceedings if presence would be useless)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1934) (presence required only if necessary for due process)
- State v. Gunther, 278 Neb. 173 (Neb. 2009) (pleading and proof standards for postconviction claims)
- State v. Jim, 275 Neb. 481 (Neb. 2008) (contempt of evidence standards in postconviction context)
- State v. Molina, 279 Neb. 405 (Neb. 2010) (postconviction relief availability and standard)
- State v. York, 278 Neb. 306 (Neb. 2009) (procedural framework for postconviction claims)