State v. UwanakaState v. Uwanaka
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Shanahan
In its fivе-count complaint filed in the county court for Sarpy County, the Stаte charged Gabriel H. Uwanaka with driving while intoxicated (DWI), see
Uwanaka asserts that his trial counsel simply “went through the motions” in handling the case in county cоurt. The record shows that Uwanaka’s lawyer secured dismissal of four counts of the complaint in exchange for a plea of no contest to the DWI charge. The factual basis, given and acсepted in conjunction with Uwanaka’s no-contest plea, disсloses that Uwanaka failed a number of field sobriety tests administered by the arresting officer, exuded the odor of alcohol and disрlayed bloodshot
*809
eyes at the time of his arrest, and had a blood alcohol level of .108 percent according to an Intоxilyzer test. Nevertheless, Uwanaka contends his lawyer failed to invеstigate circumstances surrounding Uwanaka’s arrest, the blood alcohol test, and possible defenses, namely, “one of the three medications which Defendant was taking, Triavil, will potentiate the аction of central nervous system depressants, enhancing the rеsponse to alcohol and barbituates [sic] and that another, Fiorinal, is a barbituate [sic].” We note that
As this court expressed in State v. Hawthorne, ante p. 343, 347, 431 N.W.2d 630, 633 (1988):
[According to the test adopted in Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)], to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a violation of thе sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and thereby obtain reversal of a defendant’s conviction, the defendant must show that (1) counsel’s perfоrmance was deficient and (2) such deficient performancе prejudiced the defense, that is, a demonstration of reasоnable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performanсe, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
In оur review of the record, we have been unable to locate a factual basis even remotely related to Uwanaka’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his lawyer’s alleged lack of investigation or diligent presentаtion of an available defense. To sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden to present a record which shows counsel’s deficient performance in representing the defendant. Uwanaka has failed to meet his burden to show that “counsel’s performance was defiсient.” State v. Hawthorne, supra at 347, 431 N.W.2d at 633.
Uwanaka’s claim that his plea was “fatally tainted” is meritless. The county court fully informed Uwanaka concerning an accused’s rights and the consequences of a plea *810 of guilty or nolo contendere. See State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986). Uwanaka waived rights accorded under Irish, supra, and entered his valid nolo contendere plea. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
Affirmed.