State v. Privett, 303 Neb. 404

Phillip M. Privett was charged with first-degree murder and a firearm enhancement; he pled no contest pursuant to a plea agreement after the State amended the murder charge to second-degree murder.
He was sentenced to 30–50 years for second-degree murder and 10 years for the firearm count; the Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal.
Privett filed an amended postconviction motion asserting two ineffective-assistance claims: (1) trial counsel failed to investigate and advise him about a defense that PTSD/medication-induced dissociation prevented formation of the requisite intent, and (2) counsel failed to request continued courtroom amplification or a telecommunications device when he could not hear.
Trial counsel had filed a notice of intent to rely on insanity and obtained a psychological evaluation from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Y. Scott Moore; Moore found only limited PTSD symptoms and noted possible alcohol blackout but did not identify marked PTSD-related dissociation.
The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding Privett’s allegations lacked specific factual support and the record affirmatively refuted his hearing-impairment claim.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, ruling Privett failed to plead sufficient specific facts to show counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced, and the record showed he could hear or declined offers to continue proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Privett)	Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Counsel)	Held
Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to further investigate and advise Privett about a PTSD/medication-induced inability to form intent	Counsel’s sentencing comments show they knew PTSD/meds might have prevented intent and therefore should have obtained an independent forensic psychologist and advised Privett of that defense	Counsel diligently investigated: filed for sanity/competency exams and relied on Dr. Moore’s evaluations; Privett did not identify what additional exculpatory evidence another evaluator would produce	Denied — allegations were speculative and failed to identify what an independent evaluation would have shown; reliance on Moore was reasonable, so no deficient performance or prejudice alleged
Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to secure amplification or a telecommunications device when Privett could not hear at sentencing	Court lowered its voice and Privett could not hear; counsel should have told the court or procured a device, depriving Privett of due process	Record shows the court repeatedly offered accommodations, Privett declined continuance and answered appropriately; counsel informed court of hearing issues and court offered to continue	Denied — record affirmatively refuted the claim; Privett demonstrated he could hear and participate and declined offers to continue

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 (applies Strickland in Nebraska and discusses plea-context prejudice)
State v. Vanderpool, 286 Neb. 111 (allegations of failure to investigate are speculative without showing what investigation would have produced)
State v. Fox, 286 Neb. 956 (pleas waive most defenses; ineffective-assistance claims remain for plea voluntariness)
State v. Barrera-Garrido, 296 Neb. 647 (self-serving assertions that a defendant would have gone to trial are insufficient without objective evidence)