State v. Harms

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Harms’ motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. It held that his due process competency claim was procedurally barred because he had taken a direct appeal and could have raised the issue there, and that his ineffective assistance claims failed because his allegations did not connect his mental-health history to legal incompetence. The court also concluded that the lower appellate court did not rely solely on the plea colloquy in rejecting those claims.