State v. Galindo

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Galindo's first amended motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. It held that some claims were procedurally barred, others were inadequately pleaded, and the remaining ineffective-assistance and disclosure claims failed because the record showed no deficient performance or because Galindo could not establish a reasonable probability of a different sentencing result. The court also assumed that the alleged prosecutorial conflict could implicate due process but concluded that any such conflict was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, while the alleged false testimony was immaterial.