Opinion ID: 6344773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review

Text: [1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. 2 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination. 3 1 Brief for appellant at 17. 2 State v. Lowman, 308 Neb. 482, 954 N.W.2d 905 (2021); State v. Briggs, 308 Neb. 84, 953 N.W.2d 41 (2021). 3 Id. - 228 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DRAKE Cite as 311 Neb. 219 [2] Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. 4 [3,4] Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel can be determined on direct appeal presents a question of law, which turns upon the sufficiency of the record to address the claim without an evidentiary hearing or whether the claim rests solely on the interpretation of a statute or constitutional requirement. 5 In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, an appellate court decides only whether the undisputed facts contained within the record are sufficient to conclusively determine whether counsel did or did not provide effective assistance and whether the defend­ ant was or was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance. 6