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 a consecutive 20–40 years. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Victim was found in Munoz’s apartment with 37 stab wounds; sexual assault kit contained only the victim’s DNA; no forensic evidence directly linked Munoz to the killing.
Munoz left the state after officers checked his apartment; statements and conduct (including admissions to family and comments to officers) were used by the State and referenced at trial.
Munoz filed a pro se postconviction motion asserting layered ineffective-assistance claims against trial and appellate counsel: failure to interview/depose witnesses (Manuel Trevino, Jolene Condon), failure to pursue an alibi defense, failure to call an expert to rebut blood-spatter evidence, failure to suppress unspecified statements, and failures related to a motion in limine.
The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the claims conclusory or procedurally barred for lack of specificity about proposed testimony/evidence and because some claims were known or apparent on the record but not raised on direct appeal.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, applying Strickland and Nebraska postconviction standards: the motion failed to allege specific facts that, if proven, would show constitutional infringement or prejudice from counsel’s conduct.

Issues

Issue	Munoz's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/interview alibi/flight witnesses (Trevino, Condon)	Counsel failed to depose/interview witnesses who would have testified to Munoz’s whereabouts or to evidence negating guilt	Allegations lack specific proffer of witness testimony; some claims were known/apparent from record and are procedurally barred	Denied: allegations conclusory or insufficiently specific; no hearing; Trevino testimony also would likely be hearsay and inadmissible
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to pursue/supply alibi defense	Munoz told counsel he was not in vicinity; counsel failed to give notice or present alibi	Broad assertion without identifying who would testify, what they would say, or timing; thus speculative	Denied: bare assertion of an unspecified alibi insufficient to warrant hearing
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to call an expert to rebut blood-spatter/time-of-death evidence	An expert would have refuted State’s blood-spatter theory and established timing/DNA matters favorable to Munoz	Motion did not identify what expert would say, whose DNA, or how results would change outcome	Denied: conclusory; lacked specific factual proffer showing prejudice
Failure to suppress statements / motion in limine / appellate counsel layered claims	Trial/appellate counsel erred by not suppressing unspecified statements and by not preserving/appealing a motion in limine	No facts identify the statements/evidence, the legal grounds for suppression/exclusion, or resulting prejudice; some claims not raised in verified motion	Denied: claims are conclusory or not raised below; insufficient specificity; procedurally barred where applicable

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69, 927 N.W.2d 25 (2019) (direct appeal affirming convictions; trial facts summarized)
State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149, 858 N.W.2d 880 (2015) (postconviction evidentiary-hearing standard)
State v. Stelly, 308 Neb. 636, 955 N.W.2d 729 (2021) (standards for reviewing postconviction factual sufficiency)
State v. Foster, 300 Neb. 883, 916 N.W.2d 562 (2018) (requirement to specifically allege expected witness testimony in postconviction motions)
State v. Marshall, 269 Neb. 56, 690 N.W.2d 593 (2005) (procedural-bar principle when trial counsel differs from direct-appeal counsel)