Opinion ID: 2010455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: second postconviction motion

Text: On February 27, 1995, Parmar filed his second motion for postconviction relief. In that motion, Parmar alleged that the [trial] judge gave jury instructions that were confusing and misleading, that the judge gave oral instructions to the jury and failed to put the instructions in writing, and that defendant's attorney failed to object to [all of the] jury instructions. Parmar alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated because of these errors and requested an evidentiary hearing. On March 7, the district court held that Parmar had pled only conclusions and dismissed his motion without an evidentiary hearing. On March 23, 1995, Parmar filed notice of his intent to appeal the district court's March 7 ruling. On March 31, the district court appointed counsel to represent Parmar in his postconviction appeal. In his brief, Parmar repeated the errors he had stated in his motion and also argued that the district court erred in refusing to appoint counsel to help him prepare his motion before he submitted it to the district court. We affirmed the postconviction court's judgment because Parmar's motion for postconviction relief [did] not allege facts entitling him to relief and because he did not request appointment of counsel to assist him with his postconviction relief motion. Parmar II, 249 Neb. at 463, 544 N.W.2d at 104.