State v. Harlan

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Landers

    321 N.W.2d 418 (Neb. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    See State v. Kelly, 190 Neb. 41, 205 N.W.2d 646 (1973). And, finally, we have said where one maintains that counsel was inadequate, one must likewise show how or in what manner the alleged inadequacy prejudiced one. See, State v. Colgrove, 207 Neb. 496, 299 N.W.2d 753 (1980); State v. Harlan, 205 Neb. 676, 289 N.W.2d 531 (1980); State v. Holtan, 205 Neb. 314, 287 N.W.2d 671 (1980). The record in this case, such as it is, fails to disclose how trial counsel failed to act in a reasonably competent manner in regard to the insanity defense.

  2. State v. Holloman

    311 N.W.2d 914 (Neb. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    State v. Colgrove, 207 Neb. 496, 500, 299 N.W.2d 753, 756 (1980). See, also, State v. Harlan, 205 Neb. 676, 289 N.W.2d 531 (1980). Likewise, we have frequently held in post conviction relief cases that the person challenging the competency of counsel has the burden of proof to establish the counsel's incompetence.

  3. State v. Pankey

    303 N.W.2d 305 (Neb. 1981)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be established where witnesses were not called, absent a showing in the record of the beneficial nature of such witnesses' testimony

    Where one maintains that counsel was inadequate, one must show how or in what manner the alleged inadequacy prejudiced him. State v. Colgrove, 207 Neb. 496, 299 N.W.2d 753 (1980); State v. Harlan, 205 Neb. 676, 289 N.W.2d 531 (1980). The record in this case discloses that there was more than sufficient evidence upon which the jury could determine, as it did, that the attacks were without consent and in violation of law.

  4. State v. Colgrove

    299 N.W.2d 753 (Neb. 1980)   Cited 8 times

    Likewise, we have declared that, where one maintains that counsel was inadequate one must likewise show how or in what manner the alleged inadequacy prejudiced one. State v. Harlan, 205 Neb. 676, 289 N.W.2d 531 (1980). And, further, we have declared that the person challenging the competency of counsel has the burden of proof to establish the counsel's incompetence.