State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227

Background

Erick F. Vela pled guilty (June 12, 2003) to five counts of first‑degree murder and related felonies arising from a 2002 bank robbery; a three‑judge panel imposed death sentences; direct appeal affirmed.
Vela filed an amended postconviction motion (2014) asserting multiple ineffective‑assistance claims against the same counsel who had represented him at trial and on direct appeal.
The district court initially denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; this court vacated and remanded for application of the correct standard.
On remand the district court rejected each postconviction claim and again denied an evidentiary hearing; Vela appealed, challenging six specific ineffective‑assistance allegations.
Vela also asked this court to consider a Hurst‑based challenge to Nebraska’s sentencing scheme not presented below; the court declined to consider it because it was not raised at trial or in the district court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vela)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Timing of guilty plea	Counsel failed to advise/allow earlier guilty plea; earlier plea would have avoided post‑Ring statutory changes, amended information alleging aggravators, and discovery of unrelated Lundell homicide that influenced sentencing	Prior authorities and procedural rules meant death penalty exposure existed throughout; discovery of Lundell’s body was unpredictable and counsel’s failure to expedite plea is speculative	No ineffective assistance; no prejudice proven and claims rested on speculation; denial affirmed
Prosecutor–juror relationship	Counsel failed to discover/timely challenge that presiding juror was the prosecutor’s pastor; no motion for mistrial/new trial; issue not raised on appeal	Voir dire showed juror could be fair; scope of relationship not alleged; striking juror discretionary and speculative whether different juror would change result	No prejudice or deficient performance shown; denial affirmed
Failure to appeal Batson rulings	Counsel didn’t assign error on direct appeal to trial court’s overruling of Batson objections concerning the only Hispanic and only African‑American venire members	Prosecutor gave race‑neutral reasons; trial court accepted them; appellate inclusion unlikely to change outcome	No reasonable probability appeal would succeed; appellate counsel not ineffective; denial affirmed
Intellectual functioning (mental retardation claim)	Counsel prevented State expert from conducting adaptive behavior testing; proper testing would have shown deficits and barred death penalty	Record shows adaptive testing or substitute methods were used; State expert concluded overall adaptive behavior appropriate; no prejudice from alleged omission	No deficient performance or prejudice; denial affirmed
Malice instruction re: Lundell homicide	Counsel failed to request jury instruction defining malice and failed to present evidence negating malice (e.g., coercion or diminished capacity)	Aggravator §29‑2523(1)(a) concerns prior assaultive/terrorizing history, not proof of malice; even lesser homicide evidence supports the aggravator and panel likely would weigh it the same	No prejudice shown; neither failure altered outcome; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance + prejudice)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strikes subject to Equal Protection constraint)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (jury factfinding and capital sentencing jurisprudence referenced)
Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (standards for assessing intellectual disability in capital cases)
State v. Vela, 279 Neb. 94 (prior direct‑appeal decision affirming convictions and addressing related procedural claims)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (holding that notice of aggravation requirement was procedural and not retroactive)
State v. Watson, 295 Neb. 802 (postconviction pleading/hearing standards)
State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (when ineffective‑assistance claims may be raised postconviction where same counsel represented defendant on appeal)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (standard for prejudice from appellate counsel omissions)
State v. Oliveira‑Coutinho, 291 Neb. 294 (review standards for Batson race‑neutral explanations)