State v. Vanness, 912 N.W.2d 736

Background

Kelly A. Vanness pleaded guilty to four charges arising from a September 2015 stop: driving while suspended (Class III misdemeanor), possession of methamphetamine (Class IV felony), possession of hydrocodone (Class IV felony), and possession of drug paraphernalia (infraction).
Plea was accepted after a colloquy in which the court found the pleas knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis; sentencing was deferred for problem‑solving court participation which later terminated.
At sentencing the court imposed: 60–60 days (Count 1) concurrent; 12–12 months + 9 months postrelease supervision (Count 2) consecutive with credit; 10–10 months + 9 months successive postrelease supervision (Count 3) consecutive; $100 fine (Count 4).
Vanness appealed claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including a conflict of interest and failure to investigate / promises of leniency) and that the sentences were excessive or otherwise erroneous.
The State flagged plain‑error sentencing issues: the court misstated the statutory maximum for a Class IV felony at the plea colloquy and pronounced sentences in an indeterminate form when statutes required determinate sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vanness)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest from joint representation	Counsel concurrently represented another arrestee who allegedly owned the drugs; conflict denied Vanness effective assistance	Multiple representation is not per se violation; record does not show actual conflict	Claim sufficiently pleaded but record is insufficient on direct appeal to resolve conflict issue; not decided on merits
Whether counsel failed to investigate innocence and coerced plea by promising leniency	Counsel failed to investigate that drugs belonged to another and induced plea by promising leniency	Plea colloquy affirmatively shows Vanness told court counsel investigated defenses and she denied threats or promises	Record affirmatively rebuts claim; no ineffective assistance on these grounds
Whether sentences were excessive or an abuse of discretion	Sentences should be lesser or concurrent	Sentences were within statutory limits and court considered sentencing factors (substance abuse, public safety, failed program)	No abuse of discretion; sentences within statutory range and properly considered factors
Whether sentencing contained plain error: incorrect advisement of penalties and improper indeterminate form	Court misstated Class IV felony maximum at plea; sentencing language produced indeterminate sentences though statutes require determinate sentences	Erroneous advisement did not prejudice plea; sentencing form was erroneous and requires correction	Erroneous advisement not reversible; but plain error found for pronouncing indeterminate sentences—appellate court modified sentences to determinate forms as required by statute

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mora, 298 Neb. 185 (standard for deciding ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
State v. Lane, 299 Neb. 170 (requirements for raising ineffective‑assistance issues on direct appeal)
State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (plain‑error standard)
State v. Narcisse, 260 Neb. 55 (multiple representation not per se Sixth Amendment violation)
State v. Cotton, 299 Neb. 650 (need to show actual conflict when no trial objection)
State v. Casares, 291 Neb. 150 (plea colloquy can rebut claims of promises inducing plea)
State v. Hunt, 299 Neb. 573 (appellate review of alleged excessive sentences)
State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33 (incorrect advisement of penalties does not automatically require reversal)
State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 172 (distinction between determinate and indeterminate sentences reaffirmed)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (sentence form precedent)
State v. Urbano, 256 Neb. 194 (sentence form precedent)