State v. Williams, 295 Neb. 575

Background

In 2003, Decabooter Williams was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder for setting a house fire that killed Victoria Burgess and LaTisha Tolbert; convictions were supported by eyewitness testimony, surveillance video, and Williams’ recorded confession.
Williams was represented by Douglas County public defenders at trial and by different appointed counsel on direct appeal; this Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal.
Williams filed a first postconviction motion (represented by his direct-appeal counsel) raising ineffective-assistance and other claims; the district court dismissed it without an evidentiary hearing, and an appeal of that denial was dismissed for failure to file a brief.
Williams then filed a second postconviction motion with new counsel, alleging (among other things) that direct-appeal counsel had a conflict and was ineffective for failing to raise multiple trial errors and that postconviction counsel had failed by not filing the prior appeal.
The district court granted limited relief without an evidentiary hearing by allowing Williams to appeal the denial of his first postconviction motion (characterized as a reinstated appeal) and otherwise denied relief; Williams appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could grant reinstated appeal relief without an evidentiary hearing	Williams: §29-3001 requires hearing unless record shows no relief; court erred by granting reinstated appeal without hearing	State: court lacked authority to grant relief without hearing and the claims were successive/procedurally barred	Court: It was error to grant reinstatement without a hearing under §29-3001(2); but on review Williams was not entitled to a hearing because his motion failed to allege facts entitling him to relief or the record showed no relief.
Whether ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims are procedurally barred	Williams: layered claims preserved because appellate counsel later represented him in postconviction and thus could not raise own ineffectiveness	State: different trial and appellate counsel means trial-ineffectiveness claims should have been raised on direct appeal and are barred	Court: Trial-ineffectiveness claims are procedurally barred because Williams had different counsel on direct appeal than at trial and issues were apparent; but layered claims tied to appellate counsel are not barred when same counsel represented defendant on direct appeal and in the first postconviction proceeding.
Whether appellate counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness is reviewable in second postconviction motion	Williams: appellate counsel had conflict by representing him on direct appeal and then on postconviction and failed to file briefs, preserving nothing	State: Williams could have raised claims pro se earlier; no entitlement to effective postconviction counsel	Held: Where same counsel represented Williams on direct appeal and on the first postconviction proceeding (and failed to file the appeal), Williams’ second postconviction motion was his first meaningful opportunity to raise ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims; such claims are not procedurally barred.
Whether appellate and trial counsel were ineffective under Strickland on the pleaded grounds	Williams: lists multiple specific omissions (failure to depose witness, preserve record, object to confession, investigate intoxication/insanity, challenge photos, object to prosecutor statements, etc.)	State: Most alleged errors were meritless or not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence (confession, video, eyewitnesses); some claims were procedural defaults	Held: Applying Strickland, the court found no prejudice from the majority of alleged failures and that many claims were meritless; thus Williams was not entitled to postconviction relief on those claims.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Jim, 275 Neb. 481 (2008) (postconviction relief procedure: hearing requirement and nature of relief)
State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467 (2014) (when same counsel represented defendant at trial and on appeal, first opportunity to raise trial-ineffectiveness is in postconviction)
State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7 (2008) (similar rule preserving postconviction review where trial and appellate counsel are the same)
State v. Hessler, 288 Neb. 670 (2014) (no constitutional right to effective assistance in postconviction proceedings)
State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 (2011) (insanity defense elements and limits where intoxication-produced psychosis is asserted)