two prongs test in Nebraska

2026The two prongs of the test under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2026The two prongs of the test under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2023Id.

2021Id.

2026State v. Cox, 314 Neb. 104 , 989 N.W.2d 65 (2023).

2023COX Cite as 314 Neb. 104 supra. The two prongs of this test may be addressed in either order, and the entire ineffectiveness analysis should be viewed with a strong presumption that counsel’s actions were reason- able.

2020State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932 , 898 N.W.2d 318 (2017).

2020State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932 , 898 N.W.2d 318 (2017).

2019Id.

2018Id.

2021Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 4 State v. Dalton, supra note 1 . 5 Id. - 506 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 constitutional violations that render the judgment void or void- able. 6 To establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland, 7 to show that coun- sel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 8 Next, the defendant must show th

2021Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 4 State v. Dalton, supra note 1 . 5 Id. - 506 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 constitutional violations that render the judgment void or void- able. 6 To establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland, 7 to show that coun- sel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 8 Next, the defendant must show th

2014To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington,30 the defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was defi- cient and that this deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense.31 An appellate court may address the two prongs of this test, deficient performance and prejudice, in either order.32 To show prejudice, the defendant must dem- onstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s defi- cient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.33 (a) Insufficient Allegations The Court of Appea

2014To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington,30 the defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was defi- cient and that this deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense.31 An appellate court may address the two prongs of this test, deficient performance and prejudice, in either order.32 To show prejudice, the defendant must dem- onstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s defi- cient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.33 (a) Insufficient Allegations The Court of Appea

2014The Eighth Amendment “prohibits not only barbaric pun- ishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the 40 State v. McHenry, 268 Neb. 219 , 682 N.W.2d 212 (2004). 41 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2014The Eighth Amendment “prohibits not only barbaric pun- ishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the 40 State v. McHenry, 268 Neb. 219 , 682 N.W.2d 212 (2004). 41 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2026State v. Bershon, 33 Neb.

2026State v. Bershon, 33 Neb.

2020State v. Manjikian, supra. While the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that an appellant need not allege prejudice on direct appeal when claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the Supreme Court does require “specific allegations of the conduct that he or she claims constitutes deficient performance[.]” State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 , 770, 848 N.W.2d 571 , 578 (2014) (emphasis supplied).

2014State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2014).

2019Id.

2019Id.

2019Nevertheless, we are able to determine that trial counsel’s performance in failing to offer the Wisconsin motion to preclude did not prejudice Spang, because issue preclusion does not apply in sentence enhancement proceedings.17 [11,12] Issue preclusion means that when an issue of ulti- mate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judg- ment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same 11 See State v. Filholm, supra note 1 . 12 Strickland v. Washington, supra note 3 . 13 See State v. Marks, 286 Neb. 166 , 835 N.W.2d 656 (2013). 14 State v. Filholm, supra note 1 . 15 State

2019Nevertheless, we are able to determine that trial counsel’s performance in failing to offer the Wisconsin motion to preclude did not prejudice Spang, because issue preclusion does not apply in sentence enhancement proceedings.17 [11,12] Issue preclusion means that when an issue of ulti- mate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judg- ment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same 11 See State v. Filholm, supra note 1 . 12 Strickland v. Washington, supra note 3 . 13 See State v. Marks, 286 Neb. 166 , 835 N.W.2d 656 (2013). 14 State v. Filholm, supra note 1 . 15 State

2019State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. 633 , 920 N.W.2d 246 (2018). - 10 - Grutell argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the improper jury instructions.

2019State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. 633 , 920 N.W.2d 246 (2018). - 10 - Grutell argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the improper jury instructions.

2018State v. Collins, 299 Neb. 160, 164 , 907 N.W.2d 721 , 726 (2018).

2018State v. Collins, 299 Neb. 160 , 907 N.W.2d 721 (2018).

2018See, also, e.g., State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 , 857 N.W.2d 775 (2015); State v. Yos-Chiguil, supra note 15; State v. Glover, 278 Neb. 795 , 774 N.W.2d 248 (2009); State v. McLeod, supra note 3 ; State v. Barnes, supra note 11 ; State v. Deckard, 272 Neb. 410 , 722 N.W.2d 55 (2006); State v. Silvers, supra note 19 . 27 See State v. Yos-Chiguil, supra note 15. 28 Id. at 631, 798 N.W.2d at 844, quoting Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 , 120 S. Ct. 1029 , 145 L.

2018See, also, e.g., State v. Armendariz, 289 Neb. 896 , 857 N.W.2d 775 (2015); State v. Yos-Chiguil, supra note 15; State v. Glover, 278 Neb. 795 , 774 N.W.2d 248 (2009); State v. McLeod, supra note 3 ; State v. Barnes, supra note 11 ; State v. Deckard, 272 Neb. 410 , 722 N.W.2d 55 (2006); State v. Silvers, supra note 19 . 27 See State v. Yos-Chiguil, supra note 15. 28 Id. at 631, 798 N.W.2d at 844, quoting Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 , 120 S. Ct. 1029 , 145 L.

2018The determining factor is whether the record is sufficient to adequately review the question.55 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim will not be addressed on direct appeal if it requires an evidentiary hearing.56 We conclude that the record is sufficient to address some, but not all, of Hill’s ineffective assistance claims. [14,15] In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington,57 a defendant must show, first, that counsel was deficient and, second, that the deficient per- formance actually caused prejudice to the defendant’s case.58 The two prongs of t

2018The determining factor is whether the record is sufficient to adequately review the question.55 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim will not be addressed on direct appeal if it requires an evidentiary hearing.56 We conclude that the record is sufficient to address some, but not all, of Hill’s ineffective assistance claims. [14,15] In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington,57 a defendant must show, first, that counsel was deficient and, second, that the deficient per- formance actually caused prejudice to the defendant’s case.58 The two prongs of t

2018The determining factor is whether the record is sufficient to adequately review the question.55 An ineffective assistance of counsel claim will not be addressed on direct appeal if it requires an evidentiary hearing.56 We conclude that the record is sufficient to address some, but not all, of Hill’s ineffective assistance claims. [14,15] In order to show ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington,57 a defendant must show, first, that counsel was deficient and, second, that the deficient per- formance actually caused prejudice to the defendant’s case.58 The two prongs of t

2015Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 37 See, State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478 , 618 N.W.2d 409 (2000); State v. Buckman, 259 Neb. 924 , 613 N.W.2d 463 (2000). 38 See State v. Poe, 284 Neb. 750 , 822 N.W.2d 831 (2012). 39 Id. at 774, 822 N.W.2d at 849. - 57 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CULLEN Cite as 292 Neb. 30 evidence before the judge or jury.

2018State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 , 893 N.W.2d 706 (2017).

2018State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 , 893 N.W.2d 706 (2017).

2005State v. George, 264 Neb. 26 , 645 N.W.2d 777 (2002).

2005State v. George, 264 Neb. 26 , 645 N.W.2d 777 (2002).

2024Id.

2022State v. John, 310 Neb. 958 , 969 N.W.2d 894 (2022). (a) Failure to Advise of Deadline for New Trial Borer first asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the deadline for a new trial motion.

2022Id.

2021Id.

2021The two prongs of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel may be addressed in either order, - 500 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 and the entire ineffectiveness analysis should be viewed with a strong presumption that counsel’s actions were reasonable. 8.

2021Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 4 State v. Dalton, supra note 1 . 5 Id. - 506 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 constitutional violations that render the judgment void or void- able. 6 To establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland, 7 to show that coun- sel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 8 Next, the defendant must show th

2021Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 4 State v. Dalton, supra note 1 . 5 Id. - 506 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 constitutional violations that render the judgment void or void- able. 6 To establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland, 7 to show that coun- sel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 8 Next, the defendant must show th

2021Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 4 State v. Dalton, supra note 1 . 5 Id. - 506 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 constitutional violations that render the judgment void or void- able. 6 To establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland, 7 to show that coun- sel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 8 Next, the defendant must show th

2021Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 4 State v. Dalton, supra note 1 . 5 Id. - 506 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. RUSSELL Cite as 308 Neb. 499 constitutional violations that render the judgment void or void- able. 6 To establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland, 7 to show that coun- sel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 8 Next, the defendant must show th

2021ANALYSIS [3] A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringe- ment of the defendant’s rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution. 5 [4-6] In order to establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland v. Washington, 6 to show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense in his or her case. 7 The