State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227

Background

Erick F. Vela pled guilty (June 12, 2003) to five first-degree murders and related felonies arising from a 2002 bank robbery; a three-judge panel imposed five death sentences, affirmed on direct appeal.
Vela filed an amended postconviction motion (Jan. 7, 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 correct standard application, and the district court again denied relief (Apr. 12, 2016).
On remand Vela pressed six specific claims: (1) counsel delayed advising an earlier guilty plea; (2) counsel failed to timely uncover/challenge a prosecutor–juror personal relationship; (3) counsel failed to raise Batson challenges on appeal; (4) counsel prevented full intellectual-function testing, including adaptive behavior testing; (5) counsel failed to request a malice definition instruction for an aggravator based on a prior killing; and (6) counsel failed to present evidence negating malice.
The district court found the motion alleged insufficient facts or was refuted by the record and denied an evidentiary hearing; this Nebraska Supreme Court appeal affirms that ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Vela)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Timing of plea (pre-L.B.1 / notice of aggravation / discovery of Lundell body)	Counsel should have advised an earlier plea to avoid death-penalty exposure and prejudicial evidence (L.B.1 timing, amended information, Lundell discovery).	Prior holdings show death penalty remained available and notice rules were procedural; Lundell discovery involvement was speculative as to counsel’s knowledge and timing.	Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice; prior case law and speculative nature defeat claim.
Prosecutor–juror personal relationship	Counsel failed to discover/challenge that presiding juror was prosecutor’s pastor; this prejudiced jury impartiality.	Voir dire showed juror could be fair; no showing counsel would have struck him or that a different juror would change outcome.	Denied — no demonstrated prejudice; trial court discretion to retain juror was not abused.
Failure to raise Batson on direct appeal	Counsel failed to assign error to trial court’s overruling of Batson objections (strikes of sole Hispanic and sole African-American venire members).	Prosecutor offered race-neutral reasons accepted by trial court; appellate inclusion unlikely to change result.	Denied — race-neutral explanations were adequate; no reasonable probability of a different appellate outcome.
Intellectual functioning testing / adaptive behavior	Counsel prevented State expert from administering adaptive-behavior testing; proper testing would have shown intellectual disability precluding death penalty.	Record shows adaptive testing occurred (or expert used alternative means) and expert concluded overall adaptive behavior appropriate; no prejudice from alleged omission.	Denied — record contradicts claim; no prejudice shown.
Malice instruction for prior killing used as aggravator	Counsel should have requested a malice definition instruction and presented evidence negating malice (coercion, diminished intellect) to defeat the aggravator.	Aggravator § 29-2523(1)(a) concerns prior serious/assaultive conduct regardless of legal degree of culpability; even lesser homicide supports aggravator and sentencing weight likely unchanged.	Denied — failure to request instruction or present that evidence did not establish prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strikes subject to equal protection review)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (capital sentencing factfinding issues prompting legislative response)
Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (standards for evaluating intellectual disability and adaptive functioning)
State v. Vela, 279 Neb. 94 (direct-appeal precedent discussed and relied on)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (holding notice-of-aggravation procedural and nonretroactive)
State v. Watson, 295 Neb. 802 (postconviction pleading and hearing standards)
State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (first opportunity to raise ineffective-assistance when same counsel on appeal and trial)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (prejudice inquiry for appellate counsel failures)