State v. Vanderpool
286 Neb. 111
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Vanderpool pled guilty to attempted first-degree sexual assault in 2010; sentenced 10–15 years.
- His counsel, Walocha, had a Nebraska license suspended for nonpayment of dues during the representation and was later disbarred in 2012.
- Vanderpool learned of the suspension after sentencing and filed postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- District court denied relief after applying Strickland and noting no per se rule; found arguments lacking credibility and specifics.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting both the Strickland claims and any per se rule based on suspension; held counsel’s actual performance did not demonstrate ineffective assistance; declined to adopt per se ineffectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance under Strickland framework | Vanderpool argues Walocha was ineffective | Walocha’s performance met ordinary standards | No relief; no deficient performance or prejudice established |
| Per se rule for suspended/disbarred counsel | Per se ineffectiveness applies due to suspension | No per se rule; focus on substantive license | Per se rule not adopted; suspension for nonpayment is not per se ineffective |
| Specific alleged errors (appeal, plea, investigation) | Lack of direct appeal, misleading plea promises, failure to investigate | Record refutes promises; lack of specificity on investigation | No relief; errors not shown to cause prejudice under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCroy, 259 Neb. 709, 613 N.W.2d 1 (2000) (Neb. 2000) (rejects per se ineffectiveness for postconviction in similar context; focuses on substantive licensing)
- State v. Yos-Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618, 798 N.W.2d 832 (2011) (Neb. 2011) (applies Strickland framework; standard for deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Golka, 281 Neb. 360, 796 N.W.2d 198 (2011) (Neb. 2011) (discusses credibility and ineffective-assistance standards; relevance to postconviction claims)
- State v. Poindexter, 277 Neb. 936, 766 N.W.2d 391 (2009) (Neb. 2009) (postconviction credibility concerns; court treats defendant assurances as controlling)
- Johnson v. State, 225 Kan. 458, 590 P.2d 1082 (1979) (Kan. 1979) (describes licensing as technical vs substantive; relevance to per se rule)