State v. Sundquist
921 N.W.2d 131
Neb.2019Background
- On Nov. 17, 2014, Officer Gartner stopped Marvin Sundquist for speeding, observed signs of impairment, administered field sobriety and breath tests, and a DataMaster breath test showed .160 BAC.
- Sundquist was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), second-offense aggravated. He rejected an initial plea offer and proceeded to trial.
- First trial (Apr. 2015): jury convicted Sundquist; postconviction appellate review reversed because the State failed to disclose certification evidence regarding the DataMaster operator, and the case was remanded for retrial.
- Second trial (Apr. 2017): similar evidence (officer testimony, maintenance witness) was presented; jury again convicted and county court sentenced Sundquist to 18 months’ probation.
- On appeal to the district court, Sundquist raised claims including ineffective assistance of counsel (appellate and trial), that the State should have reoffered the original plea (vindictive prosecution/due process), double jeopardy, and speedy trial violations; the district court and Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sundquist) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to file statement of errors on appeal | Appellate counsel failed to file required statement of errors, denying effective appellate review | State concedes omission but argues no prejudice because district court considered the argument on the merits | No reversible error — district court addressed the claim and found it frivolous; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance — trial/appellate advocacy (DataMaster, margin of error, field tests) | Counsel failed to adequately challenge DataMaster accuracy/margin of error, link between field tests and breath result, and to present persuasive arguments | Counsel raised margin-of-error and reoffer arguments; record shows cross-examination and advocacy; no viable alternative strategy shown | No deficient performance or no prejudice; claim without merit |
| Plea reoffer / vindictive prosecution | State failed to disclose DataMaster certification during plea negotiations and then refused to reoffer the plea after remand; this was vindictive and violated due process | No constitutional right to a plea bargain; refusal to reoffer is not vindictive where charge/severity/sentence were not increased and independent reasons existed to proceed | No due process violation; no vindictiveness shown |
| Double jeopardy | Retrial and second conviction violate Double Jeopardy | Issue was previously litigated on appeal and is law of the case; no double jeopardy bar | Rejected as waived / law of the case applies |
| Speedy trial | Delay and State’s conduct deprived Sundquist of speedy trial | Sundquist failed to preserve issue on appeal; State had no duty to disclose officer certification at plea stage | Claim without merit and not preserved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1974) (presumption of vindictiveness where prosecutor increases charge after defendant exercises a right)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (no constitutional right to a plea bargain; prosecutorial conduct in plea bargaining scrutinized under due process)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (presumption of vindictiveness applies only where a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness exists)
- State v. Obermier, 241 Neb. 802 (Neb. 1992) (State not required to offer certification into evidence at plea negotiations)
- Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123 (Neb. 2008) (law-of-the-case / waiver doctrine: issues not raised earlier are waived)
- State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (Neb. 2014) (appellate procedure requirements and standards for briefing/assignment of error)
- State v. Lavalleur, 298 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2017) (precedent applying law-of-the-case to bar relitigation on remand)