State v. Miranda
313 Neb. 358
Neb.2023Background
- Miranda and his wife had been separated; the victim, Jose Santos Parra-Juarez, was dating Miranda’s estranged wife.
- On June 13, 2020, after a bar altercation in Omaha in which Miranda shoved and assaulted Parra-Juarez, Miranda left, retrieved a holstered handgun from his car, returned, and approached the group.
- Miranda approached from behind with his hand under his shirt, produced a gun, and shot Parra-Juarez multiple times (six shots to torso/neck); an off-duty officer fired and wounded Miranda during the arrest.
- Autopsy showed fatal gunshot wounds caused by an RIP-style projectile linked to Miranda’s gun; Miranda admitted shooting but testified the events were a blur and claimed he feared for his life.
- A jury convicted Miranda of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; he was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 45–50 years consecutively and appealed.
- On appeal Miranda challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder and the weapon charge, and (2) several grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (voir dire, trial preparation, plea negotiations, and lack of zealous advocacy).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miranda) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree murder | Evidence failed to prove premeditation/deliberation; only his testimony supported his state of mind and claimed self-defense | Circumstantial evidence (prior assault, retrieving gun, approaching from behind, multiple shots, surveillance, autopsy) supported purposeful, deliberate, premeditated killing | Affirmed: evidence sufficient for first-degree murder |
| Sufficiency for use of deadly weapon to commit felony | Derivative claim: if murder not proved, weapon conviction fails | Underlying felony (first-degree murder) proved, and Miranda used a firearm to commit it | Affirmed: weapon conviction upheld |
| Ineffective assistance — voir dire | Trial counsel failed to meaningfully participate, asked few substantive questions, ‘‘abandoned’’ jury selection | Record shows lengthy prosecutor voir dire; brevity by defense not per se deficient and may reflect strategy | Dismissed on direct appeal: claim insufficiently specific and record does not show deficient performance |
| Ineffective assistance — trial preparation, plea negotiations, zeal | Counsel failed to review discovery, file suppression/pretrial motions, seek pleas, and zealously advocate | Record shows meetings with counsel, some pretrial motions filed; no evidence of specific unmade motions or missed plea offers; allegations are speculative | Dismissed: claims not pleaded with required particularity and record insufficient to show deficiency or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (counsel must inform defendant of plea offers; failure can be deficient)
- State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974 (2016) (abrogated the accused’s rule; appellate review views circumstantial evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Golyar, 301 Neb. 488 (2018) (circumstantial evidence may prove premeditated, deliberate murder; definitions of terms)
- State v. Miller, 312 Neb. 17 (2022) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767 (2012) (discussion of state of mind and circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Anders, 311 Neb. 958 (2022) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)