State v. Munoz, 309 Neb. 285

Background

Munoz was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; sentenced to life plus 20–40 years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Munoz filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief asserting layered ineffective-assistance claims against trial and appellate counsel (failure to interview/depose witnesses Trevino and Condon, failure to present an alibi, failure to suppress unspecified statements, failure to call experts on blood-spatter and mental stability, and failure to pursue/move in limine).
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the allegations largely conclusory, lacking specificity as to expected witness or expert testimony, and some claims procedurally barred because trial counsel differed from appellate counsel and alleged errors were apparent on the record.
The court also relied on evidentiary rules (hearsay/inadmissibility) to reject claims that depended on likely inadmissible testimony.
Munoz appealed the denial; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the motion pleaded sufficient specific facts to require an evidentiary hearing under Strickland and Nebraska postconviction law, and affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/depose Trevino and Condon and pursue an alibi	Munoz: counsel failed to interview these witnesses and therefore failed to present an alibi showing he was not in the area	State: allegations are conclusory, do not specify expected testimony, and some facts (if any) would be inadmissible or not exculpatory	Denied — allegations are conclusory and lack required specificity; some claims would not be exculpatory or rely on inadmissible hearsay
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to suppress unspecified statements	Munoz: counsel should have suppressed statements made to police/transporting officers	State: motion does not identify the statements or legal basis for suppression	Denied — no factual detail about the statements or grounds for suppression; insufficient for hearing
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to call expert witnesses (blood-spatter; mental stability)	Munoz: experts would have refuted State’s blood-spatter theory and established timing/mental state favorable to defense	State: allegations lack specificity about what the experts would have said or how it would change the result; some claims not raised below	Denied — conclusory; failed to allege specific expected expert testimony or how it would prejudice the outcome
Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise/ preserve trial counsel errors (including motion in limine issues)	Munoz: appellate counsel failed to preserve and brief errors for review, causing appellate harm	State: many layered claims were not pled with specificity or not raised below; some claims are new on appeal and procedurally barred	Denied — appellate claims either procedurally barred, insufficiently pleaded, or raised for first time on appeal and thus not considered

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Stelly, 308 Neb. 636 (2021) (appellate standards for postconviction ineffective-assistance review)
State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 (2015) (postconviction evidentiary-hearing standards)
State v. Marshall, 269 Neb. 56 (2005) (ineffective-assistance claims are procedurally barred when defendant had different counsel on appeal and errors were apparent from record)
State v. Foster, 300 Neb. 883 (2018) (postconviction motion must allege specific testimony expected from witness)
State v. Poe, 292 Neb. 60 (2015) (hearsay inadmissibility and evidentiary limits)