Opinion ID: 2779229
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Postconviction P roceedings

Text: In December 2011, Thorpe filed an amended pro se motion for postconviction relief. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, convictions based on insufficient evidence, abuse of discretion by the trial court, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Thorpe alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) not obtaining an independent forensic pathologist expert to rebut the testimony of the State’s forensic pathologist expert, (2) not requesting a scientific evaluation of all latent fingerprints, (3) not requesting independent forensic testing of the physical evidence, (4) not requesting independent DNA testing of three pieces of physical evidence, (5) not interviewing and investigating certain named individuals who might have been called as witnesses, (6) not investigating the possibility that someone other than Thorpe committed the murders, (7) not objecting to or moving to quash counts I and III of the second amended information, and (8) not objecting to jury instructions Nos. 4, 6, and 14. Thorpe alleged that certain comments made by the State during opening and closing arguments amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. He claimed that his convictions were based on insufficient evidence, because the State “failed to prove that the Manner of Deaths were Certified as Homicides.” And he claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury and in not rendering a “judgment of guilt.” Finally, Thorpe alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the aforementioned claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, and abuse of discretion by the trial court. On May 15, 2013, the State moved to dismiss Thorpe’s amended motion without an evidentiary hearing. The State was given 30 days to submit a brief, and Thorpe had 45 days from his receipt of the State’s brief to submit his own brief. The State did not submit a brief. In February 2014, Thorpe filed a “Motion in Opposition to Plaintiff[’]s Motion to Dismiss Amended Motion for Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. THORPE 153 Cite as 290 Neb. 149 Postconviction Relief and Request for Default Judgment.” He asked the district court to consider two additional ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims that were not included in his amended motion for postconviction relief. These new claims related to trial counsel’s alleged failure to request the appointment of a special prosecutor and to “challenge the statements and testimony of [Taiana] Matheny.” (Taiana Matheny participated in the murders and was one of the State’s witnesses at Thorpe’s trial.) Thorpe also requested that the court “enter a judgment of default against the plaintiff, for failure to respond as instructed by the Court.” Although Thorpe claims that he requested a hearing on his motion, the record does not show that he did. The court did not explicitly rule on Thorpe’s motion.