State v. Purdy, A-15-923

Background

In August 2002 Juan Juarez was fatally shot; three 9mm shell casings were recovered but no gun.
William J. Purdy was tried in 2003, convicted of second-degree murder and use of a firearm; sentences: 30–35 years and mandatory consecutive 5–10 years.
The State’s principal witness was Purdy’s cousin Christopher Chavez, who testified Purdy shot the victim; Chavez had made a deal with prosecutors.
Purdy’s direct appeal affirmed the convictions; years later (2012) Purdy filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance (trial, appellate, and initial postconviction counsel) and actual innocence.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief in a detailed 2015 order; Purdy appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Purdy’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (various failures)	Trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misstatements, handcuffs, jury instructions, witness-endorsement timing, competency issues, and defective information	Many claims were known earlier and therefore procedurally barred; where litigated, the record did not show deficient performance or prejudice	Denied — most claims procedurally barred; remaining claims rejected for lack of prejudice or deficient proof
Prosecutorial remark in opening (said a gun was found)	Counsel ineffective for not moving for mistrial; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it	The remark was an innocent, isolated misstatement corrected at trial; not prejudicial given evidence and instructions	Denied — no prosecutorial misconduct, no prejudice from counsel’s omissions
Jurors seeing defendant in handcuffs	Trial counsel ineffective for not moving for mistrial; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it	Record does not reliably show jurors observed restraints; testimony conflicted and no juror testimony; no prejudice shown	Denied — factual finding that jury observation not proven and no prejudice
Competency to stand trial	Counsel ineffective for failing to request competency evaluation; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it	Trial and appellate counsel observed Purdy competent; no medical evidence of incompetence presented	Denied — Purdy failed to prove incompetence or prejudice from counsel’s actions
Jury instructions (murder vs manslaughter; accomplice caution)	Counsel failed to object/request instructions; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising those objections	Record shows accomplice caution was given; instructions were the then-correct law; later Supreme Court changes not retroactive to this final case	Denied — no deficient performance or no prejudice; instructional law was correct when trial was final
Appellate counsel’s preservation of constitutional challenge to statute	Appellate counsel failed Rule 9E notice; thus constitutional claim wasn’t preserved on direct appeal	Counsel’s failure was deficient but Purdy showed no prejudice — he provided no argument or authority showing the statute was unconstitutional	Denied — ineffective assistance for preservation only in form, but no prejudice shown
Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel	Postconviction counsel failed to develop or present certain evidence/issues	There is no constitutional right to effective assistance in postconviction proceedings	Denied — claim without merit (no constitutional right to effective counsel in postconviction)

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Saylor, 294 Neb. 492 (Nebraska: appellate review standards for postconviction evidentiary findings)
State v. Hessler, 282 Neb. 935 (competency and procedural bars for postconviction review)
State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798 (prosecutorial misconduct standard; context matters)
State v. McGhee, 280 Neb. 558 (prejudice requirement under Strickland)
State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (restraint/shackling and jury observation principles)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (remarks by counsel must be viewed in trial context)
State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (instructional rule later altering murder/manslaughter framework)
State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636 (follow-up on manslaughter instruction rule)