State v. Vela, 900 N.W.2d 8

Background

Erick F. Vela pled guilty in 2003 to five counts of first‑degree murder and related offenses arising from a 2002 bank robbery; a three‑judge panel imposed five death sentences. Direct appeal affirmed.
In 2014 Vela filed an amended postconviction motion asserting multiple ineffective‑assistance claims (trial and appellate counsel were the same). The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; this Court remanded for application of the correct standard.
On remand the district court reconsidered and again denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, rejecting six specific ineffective‑assistance claims. Vela appealed.
The six contested claims concerned: (1) timing of guilty plea, (2) undisclosed personal relationship between prosecutor and presiding juror, (3) failure to assign Batson error on direct appeal, (4) failure to permit State expert to complete adaptive‑behavior testing re: intellectual disability, (5) failure to request a malice definition instruction tied to a prior homicide used as aggravation, and (6) failure to present evidence negating malice for that prior homicide.
The district court concluded each claim failed to allege facts that, if proved, would establish constitutional violation or prejudice under Strickland, and therefore no evidentiary hearing was required. This Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Timing of plea — counsel failed to advise earlier plea	Vela: an earlier plea would have avoided exposure to death penalty changes, amended information, and adverse evidence (Lundell homicide)	State: statutes and precedent show death penalty exposure existed; amended information and timing do not show counsel deficiency or prejudice; Lundell issue speculative	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; claim speculative and foreclosed by precedent; denied
2. Prosecutor‑juror relationship not discovered/raised	Vela: counsel failed to discover or timely challenge that presiding juror was prosecutor’s pastor; prejudiced verdict/sentencing	State: juror repeatedly affirmed impartiality; no allegation counsel would have used a peremptory; retention of juror discretionary; no shown prejudice	Court: No prejudice; voir dire responses and discretion support denial
3. Failure to raise Batson on direct appeal	Vela: prosecutor struck lone Hispanic and lone African‑American; appellate counsel’s omission prejudiced appeal	State: prosecutor gave race‑neutral reasons accepted at trial; no reasonable probability appeal would have succeeded	Court: No ineffective assistance — Batson challenge lacked likely success on appeal
4. Failure to allow State expert adaptive testing (intellectual disability)	Vela: counsel prevented adaptive testing, preventing showing of intellectual disability that would preclude death	State: record shows expert nonetheless evaluated adaptive functioning and found overall functioning appropriate; no prejudice	Court: No prejudice — alternative evaluation occurred and supported findings; claim fails
5. Failure to request malice definition instruction	Vela: absence of malice instruction for prior homicide used as aggravation prejudiced aggravation finding	State: §29‑2523(1)(a) looks to prior assaultive history; absence of malice as legal excuse not shown; lesser homicide still supports aggravator	Court: No prejudice — malice instruction not required to support aggravator; claim fails
6. Failure to present evidence negating malice	Vela: counsel should have introduced evidence (coercion, intellectual deficits) negating malice re: Lundell killing	State: even without malice, evidence of killing supports the statutory aggravator; no reasonable probability sentencing would change	Court: No prejudice; failure to present such evidence would not have undermined aggravator weight

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vela, 279 Neb. 94 (affirming convictions and addressing many substantive issues) (direct appeal opinion relied upon)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (holding notice‑of‑aggravation rule did not apply retroactively)
State v. Watson, 295 Neb. 802 (postconviction standard for evidentiary hearing)
State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (ineffective assistance claims in postconviction when same counsel handled trial and direct appeal)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (standard for prejudice from appellate counsel omissions)
State v. Oliveira‑Coutinho, 291 Neb. 294 (review standard for Batson race‑neutral explanations)
State v. Banks, 278 Neb. 342 (trial court discretion in juror retention)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912 (constitutional issues not raised below cannot be considered on appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (capital‑sentencing procedure relevant to plea‑timing arguments)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strikes and equal protection)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. Supreme Court capital‑sentencing ruling cited by petitioner but not raised below)
Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (Supreme Court decision on evaluation standards for intellectual disability)