Opinion ID: 2007872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: order of postconviction court

Text: On February 26, 2007, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss Bazer's motion for postconviction relief. As a result, the court explained, Bazer's request for an evidentiary hearing would not be considered further. The court found, after a complete review of the trial record, that the record did not support Bazer's allegations that trial counsel was unaware of the law of felony murder, that he had inappropriately advised Bazer on the ability to obtain an instruction on lesser offenses, or that trial counsel's action in admitting Bazer's actions to the jury in voir dire amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Instead, the court found that the record supports [that trial] counsel chose a trial strategy which [Bazer] agreed to . . ., that the defense would attempt to establish a new precedent in the law in Nebraska since [Bazer] wanted to go to trial and he had virtually no other options in terms of a defense. Moreover, the court also found that the statement made to the jury that Bazer had fired the gun which caused the death of Jirsak, [i]f for no other purpose . . . [,] was merely the strategy that the jury would ultimately hear of these acts . . . and . . . the jury would best hear it from defense counsel, as there was no basis to deny [Bazer's] actions. The court found that Bazer's allegations concerning improper plea advisements were procedurally barred. The court reasoned that the advisement given to Bazer was necessarily known to him when a direct appeal could have been filed, but he did not file a direct appeal. Bazer appeals the order granting the State's motion to dismiss his motion for postconviction relief.