State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227

Background

Erick F. Vela pled guilty (June 12, 2003) to five counts of first‑degree murder and related felony weapon and property counts arising from a 2002 bank robbery that resulted in five deaths; a three‑judge panel imposed death sentences for each murder.
Vela’s counsel at trial also represented him on direct appeal; his direct appeal affirming sentences was decided in 2010.
Vela filed an amended postconviction motion (2014) raising numerous ineffective‑assistance claims; the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, this Court vacated and remanded for proper standard, and on reconsideration the district court again denied relief (2016).
On remand Vela appealed contesting six specific ineffective‑assistance claims and also attempted to raise a Hurst‑based claim not raised below (which this Court declined to consider as not preserved).
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether Vela’s motion alleged sufficient facts to require an evidentiary hearing and affirmed the district court, finding no claim entitled to relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Timing of guilty plea	Vela: counsel failed to advise pleading earlier; earlier plea would have avoided exposure to death penalty or evidence (statute change, amended information, and later discovery of Lundell body) that increased penalty risk	State: holdings from direct appeal and related cases show death penalty exposure existed; effects of later events were speculative and not attributable to counsel	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; claims speculative and undermined by prior holdings — denied relief
2) Prosecutor–juror relationship	Vela: counsel failed to discover/challenge that presiding juror was prosecutor’s pastor; counsel failed to move for mistrial/new trial or raise on appeal	State: voir dire showed juror could be fair; no showing counsel would have struck juror or that a different juror would change outcome	Court: No prejudice shown; trial court discretion reasonable; claim fails
3) Failure to appeal Batson rulings	Vela: counsel failed to assign error on trial court’s overruling of Batson challenges to strikes of sole Hispanic and sole African‑American veniremembers	State: prosecutor gave race‑neutral reasons accepted by trial court; appellate challenge lacked likely merit	Court: No reasonable probability an appeal would succeed; appellate omission not prejudicial
4) Intellectual functioning (mental retardation)	Vela: counsel prevented State’s expert from performing adaptive behavior testing; additional testing would have shown deficits precluding death penalty	State: record shows expert (Zlomke) used alternative measures and concluded overall adaptive behavior appropriate; methods and findings supported trial court	Court: No prejudice from alleged failure; prior record refutes claim; denied
5) Malice instruction re: Lundell killing	Vela: counsel failed to request definition of malice for aggravating‑circumstance use of Lundell killing	State: aggravating circumstance concerns prior assaultive history, not legal malice; even if malice lacking, evidence of homicide supports aggravator	Court: Failure to request instruction did not prejudice outcome; rejected
6) Failure to present evidence negating malice	Vela: counsel failed to present evidence (coercion, diminished intellect) to negate malice for Lundell killing	State: even lesser homicide evidence still supports aggravating circumstance; sentencing panel likely would not have reduced weight sufficiently	Court: No showing of prejudice; claim fails

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vela, 279 Neb. 94, 777 N.W.2d 266 (affirming convictions and addressing related issues)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599, 774 N.W.2d 190 (on retroactivity of notice of aggravation and amended information)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strike subject to Equal Protection review; burden shifting)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury findings and capital sentencing issues prompting statutory change cited by parties)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (addressing jury role in capital sentencing; cited by Vela but not preserved below)
Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) (standards for evaluating intellectual disability evidence; noted but not controlling here)
State v. Watson, 295 Neb. 802, 891 N.W.2d 322 (standards for postconviction evidentiary hearing)