Opinion ID: 2779229
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sixth Assignment

Text: of Error Thorpe assigns that the district court erred by failing to determine that his trial counsel was ineffective for not interviewing and calling 10 witnesses to testify: James Pierce, Brandi Ford, Tiffany Ross, Orlando Cortez Burries, Aries Rosario, Teara Holman, Joshua Smithhistler, Maurice Gresham, Robert Laney, and Jamme Alexander. There are allegations in Thorpe’s amended motion for postconviction relief which correspond to nine of these witnesses. However, Thorpe’s amended motion did not allege that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Gresham. As noted previously, we will not consider “a question not presented to Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. THORPE 157 Cite as 290 Neb. 149 the district court for disposition through a defend­ant’s motion for postconviction relief.” See Haas, 279 Neb. at 817-18, 782 N.W.2d at 589. Therefore, under this assignment of error, we consider Thorpe’s allegations with respect to only those nine witnesses which were included both in his amended motion and in his brief on appeal. [9-12] In considering Thorpe’s claims as to these nine witnesses, we apply well-known legal principles. A proper ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleges a violation of the fundamental constitutional right to a fair trial. State v. Baker, 286 Neb. 524, 837 N.W.2d 91 (2013). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), the defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense. Baker, supra. To show prejudice under the prejudice component of the Strickland test, the petitioner must demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for his or her counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See id. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. [13,14] A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the defendant’s rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution. State v. Phelps, 286 Neb. 89, 834 N.W.2d 786 (2013). If a postconviction motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law, or if the records and files in the case affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing. Id. Thus, in a postconviction proceeding, an evidentiary hearing is not required (1) when the motion does not contain factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the movant’s constitutional rights; (2) when the motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law; or (3) when the records and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief. See id. Nebraska Advance Sheets 158 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS
In Thorpe’s amended motion for postconviction relief, he alleged how James Pierce, Brandi Ford, Ross, Burries, Rosario, Holman, Smithhistler, Laney, and Alexander would have testified if they had been called as witnesses. With regard to each witness, Thorpe alleged that his or her testimony “likely would have resulted in [Thorpe’s] acquittal.”
Thorpe alleged that James Pierce “had information that there was a possibility that Pacedeon Birge ‘Pacey,’ rather than [Thorpe] committed the murder of Kevin Pierce.” James Pierce would have testified that “‘Pacey’ was the type of person that would do something like this . . . in order to exact revenge on [James Pierce] for shooting [Pacey’s] brother.”
Thorpe alleged that Brandi Ford “had information that there was a possibility that ‘Pacey’ rather than [Thorpe], committed the murder of Kevin Pierce.” Specifically, Ford would have testified that she “had heard on the streets that ‘Pacey’ was telling people that it was going to be a ‘Brother for Brother’ eversince [sic] ‘Pacey’s[’] brother had been killed by James Pierce.” Ford also had heard from her friend “Travis” that another individual once threatened “to have Pacey shoot [Travis] in the head, like [Pacey] did Kevin Pierce.”
Thorpe alleged that Ross “had information that there was a possibility that ‘Pacey’ rather than [Thorpe], committed the murder of Kevin Pierce.” Ross would have testified that Kevin Pierce told her about two separate instances in which Pacey told Kevin Pierce that “he was going to kill him.” Ross also would have testified that Kevin Pierce told her that “‘Pacey’ was out to get him and would kill him” and that “the animosity between ‘Pacey’ and [Kevin] Pierce, was that [Kevin] Pierce’s brother James [Pierce], had killed Pacey’s younger brother.” Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. THORPE 159 Cite as 290 Neb. 149
Thorpe alleged that Burries “had information that there was a possibility that ‘Pacey,’ rather than [Thorpe], committed the murder of Kevin Pierce.” Burries would have testified that “a party named ‘Pacey’ had called [Kevin Pierce’s] cellphone approximately three years ago and told him ‘just like James [Pierce] killed my little brother, I’m gonna kill the youngest[’]” and that “Pacey also told James [Pierce] that he was going to do that.”
Thorpe alleged that Rosario “had information that there was a possibility that ‘Pacey,’ rather than [Thorpe], committed the murder of Kevin Pierce.” Rosario would have testified that “Pacey told her, ‘I want James [Pierce] because I’am [sic] going to do James [Pierce] like he did me” and that “Pacey then started talking about killing [James Pierce’s] little brother.” Rosario also would have testified that she “remembered a statement Pacey made to her as ‘somebody is going, going to die. I’m going to kill somebody.’”
Thorpe alleged that Holman “had information that there was a possibility that ‘Duall’ (Charles Brooks) rather than [Thorpe], committed the murder of Victor Ford.” Holman would have testified that Ford “had been fighting with ‘Duall’” and that she “believed that ‘Duall’ may have had something to do with Ford’s death.”
Thorpe alleged that Smithhistler “had information that there was a possibility that [Kevin Pierce’s girlfriend’s] mother’s boyfriend, rather than [Thorpe] committed the murder.” Smithhistler would have testified that at various times, Kevin Pierce stated that he got a “bite mark on his neck” from “his girlfriend” and that “his girlfriend was holding a knife on him.” Smithhistler also would have testified that on separate occasions, he observed Pierce arguing with “his girlfriend” Nebraska Advance Sheets 160 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS and with an individual that Pierce “said was his girlfriend’s mother’s boyfriend.”
Thorpe alleged that Laney “made phone contact with a party who had information that there was a possibility that Charles Brooks ‘Doall’, rather than [Thorpe], committed the murder of Victor Ford.” Thorpe claimed that Laney had spoken with James Pierce, Brandi Ford, Ross, Burries, Rosario, Holman, and Smithhistler, and that they told Laney the information which we described above when discussing each of these witnesses.
Thorpe alleged that Alexander “would have negated Matheny’s testimony.”
Of these nine witnesses, Thorpe alleged that all of them except Alexander would have testified to the “possibility” that someone other than Thorpe committed the murders for which he was convicted. Even if we were to assume, without deciding, that Thorpe’s trial counsel was deficient for failing to present the testimony of these eight witnesses, Thorpe cannot establish that he was prejudiced by that failure. To show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. State v. Morgan, 286 Neb. 556, 837 N.W.2d 543 (2013). Thorpe was convicted on the theory that he aided and abetted Terry Sellers and Matheny. The State’s evidence established that Matheny shot Kevin Pierce and that Sellers shot Victor Ford. The evidence showed that in both cases, the victim was shot and killed during an armed robbery. [15-17] Aiding and abetting is simply another basis for holding an individual liable for the underlying crime. State v. Foster, 286 Neb. 826, 839 N.W.2d 783 (2013). “By its terms, [Neb. Rev. Stat.] § 28-206 [(Reissue 2008)] provides that a Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. THORPE 161 Cite as 290 Neb. 149 person who aids or abets may be prosecuted and punished as if he or she were the principal offender.” State v. McGuire, 286 Neb. 494, 520, 837 N.W.2d 767, 790 (2013). We have stated that aiding and abetting requires some participation in a criminal act and must be evidenced by some word, act, or deed. Id. Mere encouragement or assistance is sufficient. Id. At trial, Matheny testified that Thorpe participated in the robberies and murders of Kevin Pierce and Victor Ford. Matheny stated that Thorpe helped to develop the plan to rob Pierce, that Thorpe supplied a rifle and revolver to use in the robbery, and that he loaded the gun which Matheny used to shoot Pierce. When Pierce arrived to meet up with Matheny, Thorpe approached Pierce with a firearm and led Pierce to the location where he was shot. After Matheny shot Pierce, Thorpe drove Pierce’s vehicle away from the scene and later removed the wheel rims from the vehicle. Matheny testified that the following night, she, Sellers, and Thorpe engaged in a similar scheme to rob Victor Ford. She stated that Thorpe talked to Ford on a cell phone and that Thorpe drove Sellers and Matheny to the location where they were supposed to meet Ford. As was the case with Kevin Pierce, Thorpe provided the gun which was used to shoot Ford and was present when Sellers shot Ford. After they took Ford’s vehicle, Thorpe instructed Matheny to wipe it clean of fingerprints. And once they abandoned Ford’s vehicle, Thorpe drove Sellers and Matheny back to their hotel. Given this powerful direct evidence against Thorpe, there is not a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different if his trial counsel had called James Pierce, Brandi Ford, Ross, Burries, Rosario, Holman, Smithhistler, and Laney to testify. These eight witnesses allegedly would have testified to the “possibility” that someone other than Thorpe committed the murders of Kevin Pierce and Victor Ford. In other words, their testimony would have been speculative as to any connection between another individual and the murders. As set forth, much of the testimony would have been hearsay or hearsay within hearsay. None of these witnesses would Nebraska Advance Sheets 162 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS have given direct evidence that someone other than Thorpe committed the murders. Such testimony would not be able to overcome the direct evidence and eyewitness testimony that Thorpe was involved in the robberies and murders of Kevin Pierce and Victor Ford. Thorpe cannot show that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to call James Pierce, Brandi Ford, Ross, Burries, Rosario, Holman, Smithhistler, and Laney. Therefore, Thorpe’s claims as to these eight witnesses did not contain factual allegations which, if proved, would entitle Thorpe to postconviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court did not err in denying relief on these claims without an evidentiary hearing. As to the ninth witness, Thorpe alleged that Alexander “would have negated Matheny’s testimony.” Thorpe did not allege what testimony Alexander would have given if called or what part of Matheny’s testimony would have been negated. In assessing postconviction claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a particular witness, we have upheld the dismissal without an evidentiary hearing where the motion did not include specific allegations regarding the testimony which the witness would have given if called. State v. Marks, 286 Neb. 166, 835 N.W.2d 656 (2013). Therefore, Thorpe was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or postconviction relief on this claim. The district court did not err in denying relief, without an evidentiary hearing, on Thorpe’s claims of ineffective assist­ ance of counsel for failure to call certain witnesses. Thorpe’s sixth assignment of error lacks merit.