Title: State v. Williams
Citation: 234 Neb. 890, 453 N.W.2d 399
Docket Number: 245
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 1990

453 N.W.2d 399 (1990) 234 Neb. 890 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Ronald E. WILLIAMS, Appellant. No. 89-245. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 30, 1990. *400 Gregory M. Schatz, of Stave, Coffey, Swenson, Jansen, &amp; Schatz, P.C., Omaha, for appellant. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Douglas J. Peterson, Lincoln, for appellee. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. BOSLAUGH, Justice. In 1986 the defendant, Ronald E. Williams, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony. He was sentenced to 20 years on the murder conviction and to 3 years for the use of a firearm, the sentences to run consecutively. The judgment was affirmed by this court in State v. Williams, 226 Neb. 647, 413 N.W.2d 907 (1987). On July 12, 1988, the defendant filed his pro se motion to vacate and set aside the judgment pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 1989). At the evidential *401 hearing on January 19, 1989, the defendant presented the record of his trial and his deposition, which contained 18 allegations of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, the chief deputy Douglas County public defender. The standard of review for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in State v. Jones, 231 Neb. 110, 112-13, 435 N.W.2d 650, 652 (1989): See, also, State v. Gagliano, 231 Neb. 911, 438 N.W.2d 783 (1989). Following the evidential hearing in this case, the trial court determined that as to nine of the allegations, there was clearly no issue of fact, and that they had no merit. The allegations and the court's findings were as follows: 4. That counsel advised defendant against accepting a plea bargain offer by the State. Defendant's testimony and that of [defense counsel] are not in dispute in that the only plea bargain offered by the State was an agreement to change Murder I to Murder II and to drop Count II, (use of a firearm in commission of a felony), in exchange for a guilty plea to Murder II. Upon being advised by [defense counsel] that defendant would have to admit the intentional act of killing the victim, defendant refused the offer. He would have accepted an offer to *402 plead guilty to manslaughter, but such offer was never made by the State. As to the remaining 10 allegations, the trial court found that the defendant was not sufficiently prejudiced by any of them even if they had any merit. The defendant has appealed and contends the trial court erred in finding that he had not been denied effective assistance of counsel and in denying his motion for postconviction relief. The facts relating to the original conviction are set forth in detail in State v. Williams, 226 Neb. 647, 413 N.W.2d 907 (1987). Briefly stated, the evidence showed that the defendant shot and killed Eric Holmes in the early morning hours of April 13, 1986, during a confrontation on a residential street in Omaha, Nebraska. The defendant testified that he shot the victim in self-defense when it appeared the victim reached with his right hand into his right pocket, which appeared to have a bulge. The victim's sister testified that the victim was left-handed. Two eyewitnesses, Steven and Judy Gregory, testified that at the time he was shot the victim's arms were extended in the air and that before the defendant shot him, the victim stated, "I don't have anything." Although there was some evidence that the victim owned a gun, there was no clear evidence that the victim was armed at the time he was shot. With regard to the remainder of the allegations in the defendant's motion, the trial court made the following findings: *404 This court concludes that it may readily dispose of defendant's ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice. Among all of the latter set of allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel, only two merit further consideration. In this court, the defendant has set forth five reasons why he claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel: (1) His counsel failed to cross-examine the Gregorys as to whether they were wearing glasses at the time of the shooting; (2) his counsel did not pursue the failure of the police to search the immediate area where the victim's body was located; (3) his counsel failed to question the pathologist who performed the autopsy as to whether he could determine by the path of the bullet through the victim's chest the position of the victim's arms at the time of the shooting; (4) his counsel failed to verify the victim's sister's testimony that the victim was left-handed; and (5) his counsel failed to investigate the victim's ownership of a firearm prior to the trial and to pursue at trial the possibility of the victim's ownership of a firearm. Although the defendant's attorney did not cross-examine the Gregorys as to whether they were wearing their glasses the night of the shooting, he did question them about their ability to see and the lighting at the scene. The defendant's counsel testified that he thought that was the best method to attempt to impeach the *405 Gregorys. He did not ask questions about their glasses because he did not think it was significant. During the trial, two police officers involved in the investigation testified that they did not see or find a weapon during the search of the victim's apartment. The defendant's counsel testified that there was nothing that showed the victim had a weapon. He did not pursue whether there was one in the victim's apartment because he felt unless there was a weapon on the victim or next to him, it was not pertinent. The defendant's counsel did not question the pathologist who performed the autopsy as to whether he could determine by the path of the bullet through the victim's chest whether the victim's arms were raised or lowered at the time of the shooting. The defendant's counsel testified that prior to the trial he had talked to another pathologist about this matter and that doctor informed him that the position of the victim's arms could not be determined from the path of the bullet. The victim's sister testified as a rebuttal witness for the State, after the defendant had testified that he shot the victim in self-defense when it appeared that the victim reached into his right pocket with his right hand. The victim's sister testified that the victim was left-handed and rarely used his right hand for any activity. The defendant's attorney did not cross-examine her because he thought it was not a matter of significance. The evidence at trial against the defendant was overwhelming. His attorney was an experienced trial lawyer who performed as a lawyer possessing ordinary training and skill in criminal law in the area should have done. His decisions regarding cross-examination of the various witnesses in the situations described above were part of a trial strategy that proved unsuccessful. That this "`strategy proved unsuccessful [i.e., that the defendant was convicted] does not sustain a finding of ineffectiveness of counsel.'" State v. Ellefson, 231 Neb. 120, 125, 435 N.W.2d 653, 657 (1989) (quoting State v. Fries, 224 Neb. 482, 398 N.W.2d 702 (1987)). Furthermore, the defendant has failed to establish how he was prejudiced by his attorney's decisions. Regarding the defendant's allegation that his counsel failed to investigate the victim's ownership of a firearm prior to the trial, his counsel testified that he did not pursue that issue because there was nothing in the evidence to indicate a weapon either immediately nearby or on the person of the victim, and the defendant had no direct knowledge as to whether the victim was carrying a weapon that night or had a reputation for carrying a weapon. "In any effectiveness of counsel case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel's judgments." (Syllabus of the court.) State v. Domingus, 234 Neb. 267, 450 N.W.2d 668 (1990). The defendant failed to establish that his counsel's investigating strategy showed a lack of reasonable professional judgment and that his counsel failed to perform at least as well as an attorney with ordinary training and skill in the field of criminal law in the area. Even if counsel's failure to investigate whether the victim owned a gun were error, the defendant did not demonstrate how such error prejudiced the outcome of his trial. See Domingus, supra. The defendant failed to establish any basis for postconviction relief. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.