State v. Harris

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Harris

Case Number
S-15-0332
Call Date
March 4, 2016
Court Number
Douglas
Case Summary

S-15-0332 State v. Michael E. Harris (Appellant)

Douglas County District Court, Judge Timothy Burns

Attorneys: Michael J. Wilson (Schaefer Shapiro, LLP)(Appellant) --- Erin E. Tangeman (Attorney General's Office)

Civil: Postconviction

Proceedings below: The district court denied Appellant's amended motion for postconviction relief.

Issues: 1) The district court erred when it denied Appellant a new trial because trial counsel's ineffective failure to investigate Woods resulted in the loss of critical exculpatory testimony that

would have both corroborated Appellant's testimony and contradicted the State's witnesses, 2) The district court erred when it denied Appellant a new trial because trial counsel's ineffective failure to investigate Perry resulted in the loss of critical exculpatory testimony supportive of Appellant's defense, 3) he district court erred in denying all of the claims other than those related to Woods and Perry because the court's order denying Appellant postconviction relief did not determine the issues, nor did it make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. ' 29-3001, 4) trial counsel provided prejudicial ineffective assistance when he failed to request a jury instruction concerning the privilege of nonretreat on the record such that the issue was preserved for appeal, 5) Appellant's conviction and sentence for Count III, possession of a deadly weapon (firearm) by a prohibited person, constitutes plain error because the stipulation as to Appellant's prior felony conviction did not establish whether Appellant had or waived counsel at the time of the prior felony conviction, 6) Appellant's conviction and sentence for Count III, possession of a deadly weapon (firearm) by a prohibited person, constitutes plain error because the trial court did not inform Appellant at the time of his plea that his sentence for Count III could not run concurrently with his sentence for Count II, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and 7) Appellant's conviction and sentence for Count III, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, should be reversed because trial counsel provided prejudicial ineffective assistance when he failed to inform Appellant at the time of his plea that his sentence for Count III could not run concurrently with his sentence for Count II, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.