Opinion ID: 4540989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

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. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protection is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination. 1 When a motion to suppress is denied 1 State v. Hartzell, 304 Neb. 82, 933 N.W.2d 441 (2019). - 738 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 pretrial and again during trial on renewed objection, an appellate court considers all the evidence, both from trial and from the hearings on the motion to suppress. 2 [2] A trial court’s determination of competency will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is insufficient evidence to support the finding. 3 A trial court’s decision not to order a competency evaluation or hold a competency hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 4 [3] 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 defendant was or was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance. 5