Opinion ID: 1862422
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Ineffectiveness of Postconviction Counsel.

Text: Gray claims that his first postconviction counsel was ineffective. Specifically, Gray argues that in connection with his first postconviction proceeding, his postconviction attorney failed to advise him that under established law, he would not receive credit for time served pursuant to the first conviction if Gray was successful in his postconviction action and was again convicted and sentenced to life in prison in a subsequent criminal proceeding. See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 252 Neb. 675, 564 N.W.2d 581 (1997) (holding that it is a proper sentence to deny credit for time served to criminal defendant who received life sentence on second conviction after first conviction was set aside); State v. Rust, 247 Neb. 503, 528 N.W.2d 320 (1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 905, 116 S.Ct. 271, 133 L.Ed.2d 193 (same). Because Nebraska does not recognize a constitutional claim based upon ineffectiveness of postconviction counsel, Gray's assignment of error is without merit. In State v. Stewart, 242 Neb. 712, 496 N.W.2d 524 (1993), cert. denied, Abdullah v. Nebraska, 510 U.S. 829, 114 S.Ct. 97, 126 L.Ed.2d 64, we considered and rejected a criminal defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a postconviction case. In Stewart, we stated: The federal constitution has been interpreted to provide that a defendant in a criminal case where imprisonment is imposed has the right to assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).... The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the assistance of counsel provision in the U.S. Constitution applies to direct appeals only. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987).... As the Finley court stated, postconviction relief is not part of the criminal proceeding itself, and it is in fact considered to be civil in nature.... States have no obligation to provide a postconviction relief procedure, and when they do, the fundamental fairness mandated by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not require that the State supply a lawyer as well.... In Coleman v. Thompson, [501] U.S. [722], 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held that because there is no constitutional right to an attorney in state postconviction proceedings, a petitioner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel in such proceedings. [501 U.S. at 752, 111 S.Ct. at 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640]. The Nebraska Constitution's provision for assistance of counsel in a criminal case is no broader than its counterpart in the federal constitution. We, therefore, hold that a prisoner cannot claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of an attorney's service in a postconviction proceeding. 242 Neb. at 719, 496 N.W.2d at 529. Pursuant to Stewart, Gray cannot claim ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. This assignment of error is without merit.