Opinion ID: 4540989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: 1. Motion to Suppress In seeking to suppress evidence obtained from the search of her purse, Lang argues (1) the search was unlawful because it occurred after the purpose of the traffic stop had been completed and (2) the search of her purse was not justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. We address each argument in turn and reject both. (a) Traffic Stop Not Impermissibly Extended [4,5] A lawful traffic stop can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete 2 Id. 3 State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406, 923 N.W.2d 725 (2019). 4 See State v. Cortez, 191 Neb. 800, 218 N.W.2d 217 (1974) (failure to hold hearing on defendant’s mental capacity to stand trial not abuse of discretion). See, also, U.S. v. Turner, 644 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court’s decision not to order competency evaluation or hold competency hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion). 5 State v. Lee, 304 Neb. 252, 934 N.W.2d 145 (2019). - 739 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 the mission of the stop. 6 When the mission of an investigative stop is addressing a suspected traffic violation, the U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that the stop may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose, and authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are, or reasonably should have been, completed. 7 Here, Fristoe was stopped for exceeding the speed limit. Lang does not challenge the stop itself, but she argues that by the time the odor of marijuana was detected, the traffic stop was already complete. 8 We disagree. The record shows that near the end of the traffic stop, while one officer was in the process of explaining the speeding citation to the driver but before the citation had been issued, the other officer smelled marijuana coming from the passenger window. The district court made an express factual finding that the odor of marijuana was detected before the traffic citation had been issued to the driver. This factual finding is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. There is no evidence that officers took any longer than necessary to investigate the speeding violation or to prepare the resulting citation. And because the citation had not yet been issued to Fristoe, the purpose of the traffic stop had not yet been effectuated when the smell of marijuana was detected coming from the vehicle. [6] Because of marijuana’s legal status as contraband, a trained officer who detects the odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle in Nebraska has firsthand information that provides an objectively reasonable basis to suspect contraband will be found in the vehicle. 9 The smell of marijuana provided officers with reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop 6 State v. Barbeau, 301 Neb. 293, 917 N.W.2d 913 (2018). 7 Rodriguez v. U.S., 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015). 8 See id. 9 State v. Seckinger, 301 Neb. 963, 920 N.W.2d 842 (2018). - 740 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 to include investigation of possible criminal activity involving controlled substances. 10 Moreover, because the vehicle was readily mobile, the odor of marijuana alone provided officers with probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 11 We discuss that exception next. (b) Automobile Exception [7,8] Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. 12 Searches without a valid warrant are per se unreasonable, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. 13 Among the established exceptions to the warrant requirement is the automobile exception. 14 [9-11] This exception applies when a vehicle is readily mobile and there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the vehicle. 15 Probable cause to search requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. 16 Assuming the vehicle is readily mobile, the odor of marijuana alone provides probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. 17 Lang does not contest that Fristoe’s vehicle was readily mobile, and she generally concedes the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle after smelling marijuana. But Lang argues the automobile exception did not justify the warrantless 10 See State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352, 803 N.W.2d 450 (2011). 11 Seckinger, supra note 9. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. - 741 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 search of her purse, because when the purse was searched, it was no longer inside the vehicle. On this record, we are not persuaded that makes a difference. [12] The U.S. Supreme Court has held that if probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. 18 This includes all containers within the vehicle. 19 The district court made a factual finding that Lang was seated inside the vehicle with the purse on her lap when the officer detected the smell of marijuana. Lang was seated in the passenger seat, and the smell of marijuana was coming from the passenger window. After noticing the smell, the officer observed Lang repeatedly “go through her purse,” and when Lang was asked to step out of the vehicle, she brought the purse with her. Officers instructed her to set the purse on the hood of the vehicle, and she complied. On this record, the location of the purse at the time it was searched does not change its character as a container that was inside the vehicle when officers developed probable cause to search the vehicle. 20 The district court properly overruled Lang’s motion to suppress. 2. Competency Rulings Lang’s trial counsel moved for a competency evaluation three times during the course of this case­—before jury selection, before the presentation of evidence, and before sentencing. She argues the court erred in overruling those motions. 18 Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999). 19 Id. 20 See, e.g., State v. Furrillo, 274 Or. App. 612, 362 P.3d 273 (2015) (passenger’s backpack properly searched after he removed it from vehicle upon exiting after drug dog alerted to vehicle); State v. Smith, 152 Idaho 115, 266 P.3d 1220 (Idaho App. 2011) (backpack in vehicle at time officer observed marijuana pipe in vehicle properly searched even though driver removed it from vehicle upon exiting). - 742 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 [13,14] The question of competency to stand trial is one of fact to be determined by the court, and the means employed in resolving the question are discretionary with the court. 21 The trial court may cause such medical, psychiatric, or psychological examination of the accused to be made as it deems necessary. 22 But an explicit competency determination is necessary only when the court has reason to doubt the defendant’s competence, and if proceedings do not provide the court with reason to doubt a defendant’s competence, it does not err by not conducting a competency hearing. 23 [15,16] A person is competent to plead or stand trial if he or she has the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him or her, to comprehend his or her own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense. 24 We have recognized there are no fixed or immutable signs of incompetence, and a defendant can meet the modest aim of legal competency, despite paranoia, emotional disorders, unstable mental conditions, and suicidal tendencies. 25 We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to overrule Lang’s motions for a competency evaluation. On appeal, Lang does not contend she was unable to understand or comprehend the proceedings against her. She argues only that “[h]er mental illness before jury selection and presentation of evidence prevented [her] from presenting a rational defense.” 26 She does not explain why this is so, and we see nothing in the record to support this argument. Despite Lang’s mental health diagnoses and her occasional emotional responses in the courtroom, the record contains 21 State v. Lassek, 272 Neb. 523, 723 N.W.2d 320 (2006). 22 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163, 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); Cortez, supra note 4. See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1823 (Cum. Supp. 2018). 23 See State v. Hessler, 274 Neb. 478, 741 N.W.2d 406 (2007). 24 Grant, supra note 22. 25 State v. Hessler, 282 Neb. 935, 807 N.W.2d 504 (2011). 26 Brief for appellant at 15. - 743 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 nothing that would provide the court with a reason to doubt her competence. The trial court had the opportunity to observe and interact with Lang during jury selection, during the plea hearing, during the bench trial, and during sentencing. During those interactions, Lang consistently demonstrated an understanding of the criminal proceedings and her rights in relation to those proceedings, as well as the ability to assist in her own defense. On this record, there was no abuse of discretion in overruling Lang’s motions for a competency evaluation. 3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel [17] Lang assigns that her trial counsel, who was different from her appellate counsel, provided ineffective assistance. Generally, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 27 the defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance actually prejudiced the defend­ ant’s defense. 28 [18] When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective perform­ ance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. Otherwise, the issue will be procedurally barred in a subsequent postconviction proceeding. 29 [19] The fact that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal does not necessarily mean that it can be resolved on direct appeal. 30 The determining factor is whether the record is sufficient to adequately review the 27 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 28 State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33, 932 N.W.2d 857 (2019). 29 Id. 30 Id. - 744 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 question. 31 We have said the record is sufficient if it establishes either that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient, that the appellant will not be able to establish prejudice, or that trial counsel’s actions could not be justified as a part of any plausible trial strategy. 32 Lang’s brief argues that her trial counsel was deficient in three respects: (a) failing to preserve appellate review of the court’s rulings on the competency motions, (b) failing to move for a continuance, and (c) stipulating that evidence received at the suppression hearing could be considered by the court during the bench trial. We conclude the record is sufficient to resolve all of Lang’s claims, and we find them all to be meritless. (a) Preserving Appellate Review Lang argues that to preserve appellate review of the court’s rulings on her motions for a competency evaluation, trial counsel should have taken an immediate interlocutory appeal from the court’s rulings. Lang is mistaken, as is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that we reviewed those rulings in this direct appeal. [20] It is true that a proceeding to determine competency to stand trial is a special proceeding within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016) and that an order finding an accused incompetent to stand trial and ordering the accused confined until such time as he or she is competent is a final order from which an appeal may be taken. 33 But no such order was entered here, because competency proceedings were deemed unnecessary by the court. The trial court’s decisions overruling Lang’s motions for a competency evaluation were not final, appealable orders, 34 and Lang’s trial counsel was 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 See State v. Jones, 258 Neb. 695, 605 N.W.2d 434 (2000). 34 See id. - 745 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 not deficient in waiting until direct appeal of the judgment to assign error to those interlocutory rulings. (b) Failing to Move for Continuance Lang argues her trial counsel performed deficiently when he moved for competency evaluations prior to jury selection and prior to trial, rather than moving to continue trial. She argues that as between the two motions, “the correct motion was to continue the trial, as it would be easier to prove.” 35 To prevail on such a claim, Lang would need to show both that counsel’s decision to move for a competency evaluation rather than a continuance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that if a motion to continue had been made, a reasonable probability exists that the result of the trial would have been different. 36 She can show neither. [21] Trial counsel is afforded due deference to formulate trial strategy and tactics, and an appellate court will not second-guess trial counsel’s reasonable strategic tactics when reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 37 As such, counsel does not render deficient performance merely by failing to present the motion that is “easier to prove.” Moreover, Lang does not argue, and we see nothing in the record, suggesting that if a motion to continue had been made and sustained, the result of trial in this case would have been any different. This claim has no merit. (c) Stipulating to Evidence Lang argues her trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating, during the bench trial, that the court could consider evidence received at the suppression hearing. The record affirmatively refutes her claim that trial counsel performed deficiently in this regard. 35 Brief for appellant at 16. 36 See State v. Nolt, 298 Neb. 910, 906 N.W.2d 309 (2018). 37 State v. Manijikian, 303 Neb. 100, 927 N.W.2d 48 (2019). - 746 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. LANG Cite as 305 Neb. 726 At the plea hearing, Lang told the court that in order to preserve her right to appeal the suppression ruling, she wanted to waive a jury and have a stipulated bench trial. At the time, Lang’s counsel explained that Lang was asking to “try this matter based upon the facts as submitted to the Court in the hearing on the motion to suppress.” The court accepted Lang’s jury waiver and proceeded directly to the stipulated bench trial. As is typical in such a proceeding, trial counsel stipulated to the admission of certain evidence while preserving the arguments raised in the motion to suppress, then the district court determined whether that evidence was sufficient to convict Lang of the crime charged. 38 The record shows that Lang agreed to a stipulated bench trial to preserve her right to appeal the suppression ruling and that she did so after discussing this strategy with trial counsel and with the understanding that counsel would stipulate to the admission of the evidence received during the suppression hearing. On these facts, Lang cannot show trial counsel performed deficiently in stipulating to that evidence during the bench trial.