S-23-0365 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Haas (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County, Judge Stefanie A. Martinez
Attorneys: Ann C. Addison-Wageman (Law Offices of Ann C. Addison-Wageman, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellant) and Jacob M. Waggoner (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee)
Criminal: First-Degree Sexual Assault
Proceedings below: When Appellant’s counsel did not file a direct appeal of his first-degree sexual assault conviction and his forty (40) to fifty (50) year prison sentence, the district court granted Appellant the right to file a direct appeal. This appeal followed. On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) Appellant asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the trial court on the following grounds: a) Trial counsel failed to challenge the deficiencies of the Amended Direct Information through a Motion to Quash waiving Appellant’s defense; b) Trial counsel failed to divulge that his health condition(s) impaired his ability to represent Appellant through the strenuous pretrial proceedings and at trial; c) Trial counsel failed to truthfully advise Appellant of the expected outcome of his case when advising him to plead rather than exercising his right to trial, contrary to his intent that he expressed to counsel; d) Trial counsel failed to properly advise Appellant of his rights, waiver of rights, and both the direct and indirect consequences of his plea of no contest and deficiently allowed the district court to accept his no contest plea that was not freely, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; e) Trial counsel failed to allow Appellant the opportunity to review his presentence report before his sentencing hearing and to give Appellant the opportunity to file a response or make necessary revisions and/or additions before the sentencing hearing; f) Trial counsel failed to submit mitigating documents on Appellant’s behalf before the sentencing hearing which precluded the district court the opportunity to review all mitigating documents and other information that might affect the court’s sentence when considering the relevant factors; 2) The district court abused its discretion by accepting Mr. Haas’s no contest plea; and 3) The district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.