State v. Warner
312 Neb. 116
Neb.2022Background
- In January 2020 Paul B. Warner violently attacked his wife, son, and a friend and fired at police; the State charged him with 29 felonies.
- Warner filed a notice of intent to rely on an insanity defense and the court ordered a psychiatric examination.
- The parties reached a plea agreement: Warner entered no contest pleas to six felony counts; the agreement expressly waived any insanity-defense claim and reserved dismissal of the remaining counts; the court accepted the pleas after a colloquy.
- Before sentencing Warner obtained a forensic report from Dr. Terry Davis concluding Warner was legally insane at the time of the offenses (but competent to plead) and then sought to withdraw his pleas to obtain a second expert opinion.
- The district court denied the motion to withdraw and sentenced Warner to 18–32 years in prison consistent with the plea agreement. Warner appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Warner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a §29-2203 notice required a pretrial adjudication of sanity before accepting pleas | Statute does not mandate a pretrial sanity determination; insanity is a trial issue | Filing the notice required the court to determine sanity before accepting pleas | Court: No pretrial adjudication required; notice preserves right to present insanity evidence at trial but does not bar plea acceptance |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Warner’s motion to withdraw no contest pleas | Plea was knowing, voluntary, and contained an express waiver of insanity; no newly discovered evidence | Waiver of an insanity defense is invalid; he did not understand the insanity defense mechanics; he sought a second expert (new evidence) | Court: No abuse of discretion; waiver valid, plea knowing and voluntary, and second-opinion request was mere change of mind not newly discovered evidence |
| Whether a defendant can waive an insanity defense by plea | A competent defendant may waive defenses by plea, including potential insanity defenses | A defendant cannot waive an insanity defense once an opinion suggests legal insanity | Court: A competent defendant may waive a potential insanity defense; waiver in the plea agreement controlled |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim for advising the plea can be resolved on direct appeal | Claim must be supported by an adequate record to resolve on direct appeal | Trial counsel was ineffective for advising acceptance of plea given Davis’s opinion | Court: Record insufficient to resolve ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal; review reserved to postconviction if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Canaday, 307 Neb. 407 (trial court has discretion to allow pre‑sentencing plea withdrawal; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Carr, 294 Neb. 185 (defendant must show fair and just reason by clear and convincing evidence to withdraw plea before sentencing)
- State v. Theisen, 306 Neb. 591 (standard for resolving ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal depends on record sufficiency)
- State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (issues of trial counsel’s ineffective performance known or apparent from record must be raised on direct appeal or are procedurally barred)
- State v. Nollett, 29 Neb. App. 282 (a defendant’s change of mind, by itself, is insufficient to justify plea withdrawal)
- U.S. v. Harvey, 829 F.3d 586 (claims based on information available before plea do not qualify as newly discovered evidence)