State v. Warner
977 N.W.2d 904
Neb.2022Background
- On January 22, 2020, Paul B. Warner attacked his wife, son, and a friend and fired a gun at responding officers; he was charged with 29 felonies.
- Warner filed a notice of intent to rely on an insanity defense; the State sought a competency/insanity examination by Lincoln Regional Center staff.
- In March 2021 Warner entered a written plea agreement: no contest pleas to six felonies in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts; the agreement expressly waived any insanity defense and was accepted after a plea colloquy.
- After the pleas but before sentencing new counsel appeared and Warner moved to withdraw his pleas, presenting a report from Dr. Terry Davis concluding Warner was legally insane at the time of the offenses and requesting completion of the State-ordered exam by Dr. Hartmann.
- The district court denied the motion to withdraw and sentenced Warner to an aggregate term of 18 to 32 years; Warner appealed, also asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for advising him to accept the plea despite the potential insanity defense.
Issues
| Issue | Warner's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a §29-2203 notice required a pretrial judicial determination of sanity before accepting pleas | Filing the notice obligated the court to adjudicate insanity pretrial | §29-2203 contemplates presenting insanity evidence at trial; no pretrial adjudication required | Court rejected Warner; no statutory pretrial adjudication duty |
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying withdrawal of no contest pleas based on Dr. Davis’s opinion | Dr. Davis’s report showed potential legal insanity and warranted withdrawal to pursue that defense | Warner knew of Davis’s opinion before pleading; plea waiver was knowing and voluntary; no newly discovered evidence | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion; plea waiver effective |
| Whether second opinion/unfinished State exam (Hartmann) and change of mind justify withdrawing pleas | Warner wanted Hartmann’s exam completed and a second opinion; change of heart justified withdrawal | Warner already had Davis’s opinion before pleading; mere change of mind is not a fair and just reason; future expert outcomes speculative | Court held desire for a second opinion and change of mind insufficient to withdraw plea |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising acceptance of plea despite potential insanity defense | Counsel should have advised against plea given Davis’s opinion | Record lacks information about counsel’s advice or reasoning; claim not demonstrable on this record | Court found the record insufficient to resolve ineffective assistance on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Canaday, 307 Neb. 407 (standard for presentencing plea-withdrawal review)
- State v. Carr, 294 Neb. 185 (burden and standard for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal)
- State v. Theisen, 306 Neb. 591 (standards for deciding ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (procedural bar principles for unraised trial-counsel issues on appeal)
- U.S. v. Harvey, 829 F.3d 586 (claims based on information known before plea do not constitute newly discovered evidence)
- State v. Nollett, 29 Neb. App. 282 (change of mind is insufficient alone to justify plea withdrawal)