S-22-0196 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Marlon E. Miranda, Jr. (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Duane C. Dougherty
Attorneys: Kyle M. Melia (Douglas County Public Defender’s Office for Appellant) and Erin E. Tangeman (Assistant Attorney General for Appellee).
Criminal: Murder in the First Degree, Use of a Deadly Weapon, and Life Imprisonment
Proceedings below: A jury found Appellant guilty of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (firearm) for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and forty-five (45) to fifty (50) years imprisonment for each conviction, respectively. Life imprisonment sentences are automatic and direct appeals to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The evidence presented at trial lacks the probative value to sustain a guilty verdict because no rational trier of fact could find the Appellant guilty of the crime of Murder in the First Degree; 2) The evidence presented at trial lacks probative value to sustain a guilty verdict because no rational trier of fact could find the Appellant guilty of the crime of Use of a Deadly Weapon, firearm, to commit a felony; 3) Trial counsel’s performance was deficient because he never sought out plea negotiations with the State and, but for that deficient performance, the result of the proceeding below would have been different; 4) Trial counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to meaningfully participate in voir dire and, but for that deficient performance, the result of the proceeding below would have been different; 5) Trial counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to adequately prepare for a First Degree Murder trial be failing to review discovery with Marlon Miranda and failing to file pretrial motions and, but for that deficient performance, the result of the proceeding below would have been different; and 6) Trial counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to zealously advocate for Marlon Miranda and, but for that deficient performance, the result of the proceeding below would have been different.