Opinion ID: 1896787
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Gibilisco's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Due to Speedy Trial Issues Is Without Merit.

Text: Gibilisco claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to counsel's purported failure to challenge the amended information on speedy trial grounds. As a consequence, Gibilisco argues that the district court erred in this postconviction case when it vacated its June 6, 2007, order which had granted Gibilisco's motion for postconviction relief in its entirety based on a speedy trial violation, and further erred in its November 7, 2008, order which granted postconviction relief limited to count I. We find no error in the district court's rulings. As noted above, on November 2, 2007, the district court filed an order granting the State's motion for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2008, the court concluded that Gibilisco's counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion for discharge on speedy trial grounds on counts II through V of the amended information. In its order granting the State's motion for reconsideration, the court noted that these additional charges were first filed in an amended information and concluded that they were not subject to the same dismissal dates for speedy trial purposes as controlled the speedy trial analysis on count I, which was the only charge found in both the original and amended informations. The district court concluded that although there had been a violation of the speedy trial act on count I, the trial on the four new counts in the amended information did not violate the speedy trial act. In reaching its conclusion, the district court quoted this court's decision in State v. French, 262 Neb. 664, 670, 633 N.W.2d 908, 914 (2001), as follows: It is important to determine whether the amendment charges the same crime or a totally different crime. A distinction is made between an amendment to a complaint or information and an amended complaint or information. If the amendment to the complaint or information does not change the nature of the charge, then obviously the time continues to run against the State for purposes of the speedy trial act. If the second complaint alleges a different crime, without charging the original crime(s), then it is an amended complaint or information and it supersedes the prior complaint or information. The original charges have been abandoned or dismissed. Based on this jurisprudence, the district court reasoned that the substance of count I had not changed in the amended information, so the time for bringing Gibilisco to trial on that count had expired. The court further determined, however, that the amended information, which added counts II through V, restarted the speedy trial clock applicable to those counts. Applying the reasoning in French, the court stated that in addition to repeating count I, the amended information charged Gibilisco with four additional, separate crimes of sexual assault on the same victim. The court stated that the speedy trial clock should have been restarted for these new and different charges. The court noted that Gibilisco had had ample opportunity to investigate and object to the nature and sufficiency of evidence on the amended information and to move to quash the amended information had that been warranted. The district court determined that counts II through V did not violate the speedy trial statute and that therefore, Gibilisco suffered no prejudice due to his trial counsel's purported failure to file a motion to discharge with respect to these additional charges. We agree with the district court's analysis. Gibilisco argues that the district court's conclusions were in error, because the four counts contained in the amended information were based on the same set of facts as the original charge and the State knew of the facts associated with the additional charges at the time the original information was filed. Gibilisco therefore claims that the speedy trial clock should not be deemed to have restarted upon the filing of the amended information. In order to establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial or on direct appeal, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to show that counsel's performance was deficient; that is, counsel's performance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law in the area. State v. Thomas, 278 Neb. 248, 769 N.W.2d 357 (2009). In addition, the defendant must show that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense in his or her case. Id. In order to show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. The two prongs of this test, deficient performance and prejudice, may be addressed in either order. See id. In determining whether a trial counsel's performance was deficient, there is a strong presumption that such counsel acted reasonably. Id. The issue in this case is the effect, if any, for speedy trial purposes of the filing of the amended information on each of the five counts. In State v. French, 262 Neb. 664, 633 N.W.2d 908 (2001), we noted that in cases involving amended charges, it is important to determine whether the amended charge is for the same crime or for a totally different crime. We stated that [i]f the amendment to the complaint or information does not change the nature of the charge, then obviously the time continues to run against the State for purposes of the speedy trial act. Id. at 670, 633 N.W.2d at 914. Here, the amended information charged five separate counts of first degree sexual assault, albeit during the same alleged timeframe. Although count I repeated the substance of the charge found in the original information, counts II through V were new charges based on four additional incidents of sexual assault against the victim in this case. These charges were not based on facts identical to the original charge; rather, they were separate incidents of sexual assault during the same time period as had been alleged with respect to the first charge. Except for count I, the nature of the charges against Gibilisco were changed by the amended information. Each of these new charges required the State to present separate, additional evidence in order to prove each additionally alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, as has been described previously in this case on direct appeal, at trial, the victim testified that she could recall five separate incidents of sexual assault. State v. Gibilisco, No. A-04-480, 2005 WL 1022024 (Neb.App. Apr. 26,2005) (not designated for permanent publication). Referring to the amended information, Gibilisco suggests that allegations of a time period as distinguished from particular dates is problematic. We find no error in this regard. We have concluded that as long as the information provides a timeframe which has a distinct beginning and an equally clear end within which the crimes are alleged to have been committed, it is constitutionally sufficient. See State v. Martinez, 250 Neb. 597, 550 N.W.2d 655 (1996). See, also, State v. Piskorski, 218 Neb. 543, 357 N.W.2d 206 (1984). As was noted in Martinez, to hold otherwise would impose an impossible burden on a child sexual assault victim where there are allegations of multiple assaults over a lengthy timeframe. To summarize, because counts II through V alleged separate and distinct crimes and required the State to present different evidence to prove each of these crimes as charged, the speedy trial clock began to run again upon the filing of the amended information. There was no speedy trial violation on these new charges. Because Gibilisco was not prejudiced by his counsel's purported failure to file a motion to discharge based on a violation of the speedy trial act with respect to counts II through V, Gibilisco did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel in this regard and we affirm the district court's ruling relative to counts II through V. For completeness, we note that the State did not cross-appeal the district court's order granting post-conviction relief relative to count I, and we do not consider this ruling.