State v. German

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 06/26/2026 08:07 AM CDT - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin S. German, appellant. ___ N.W.3d ___ Filed June 26, 2026. No. S-25-673. 1. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Appeal and Error. In appeals from postconviction proceedings, an appellate court reviews de novo a determination that the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to dem- onstrate a violation of his or her constitutional rights or that the record and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief. 2. Postconviction: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Whether a claim raised in a postconviction proceeding is procedurally barred is a question of law which is reviewed independently of the lower court’s ruling. 3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. A correct result will not be set aside merely because the lower court applied the wrong reasoning in reaching that result. 4. Postconviction: Constitutional Law. Postconviction relief, described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (Cum. Supp. 2024), is a very narrow category of relief, available only to remedy prejudicial constitutional violations that render the judgment void or voidable. 5. Postconviction: Pleadings. The allegations in a motion for postcon- viction relief must be sufficiently specific for the district court to make a preliminary determination as to whether an evidentiary hearing is justified. 6. ____: ____. A postconviction motion that lacks the specific factual alle- gations necessary to support the claims made is no more than a fishing expedition for evidence that might aid in obtaining postconviction relief and is therefore insufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing. 7. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Proof. An evidentiary hearing is required on a motion for postconviction relief containing specific factual allegations that, if proved, constitute an infringement of the movant’s rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution—unless the records and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.  - 653 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 8. ____: ____: ____. An evidentiary hearing is required on a motion for postconviction relief unless (1) the motion does not contain factual allegations that, if proved, constitute an infringement of the movant’s constitutional rights rendering the judgment void or voidable; (2) the motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts; or (3) the records and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief. 9. Postconviction: Proof. In the absence of alleged facts that would render a judgment void or voidable, the proper course is to overrule a motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. 10. Postconviction: Appeal and Error. A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure review of issues which were or could have been litigated on direct appeal, no matter how those issues may be phrased or rephrased. 11. Postconviction: Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. Ordinarily, the issue of trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness will be procedurally barred when a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal and the defendant does not raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. 12. Postconviction: Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be raised for the first time on postconviction review. 13. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not procedurally barred if it was raised on direct appeal but not expressly or necessarily decided on the merits. 14. Postconviction: Claim Preclusion: Appeal and Error. The Nebraska Supreme Court applies principles analogous to claim preclusion on postconviction actions to bar relitigating any issues directly addressed or necessarily included in its decision on direct appeal of an inmate’s convictions and sentences. 15. Postconviction: Collateral Attack: Appeal and Error. A defendant cannot use a motion for postconviction relief to collaterally attack issues that were decided against him or her on direct appeal. 16. Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof: Appeal and Error. Like a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel has two prongs, deficient performance and preju- dice. These can be addressed in any order, and a court need not examine both prongs if a defendant fails to demonstrate either. 17. ____: ____: ____. To show deficient performance, an inmate alleging a layered claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must allege  - 654 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 sufficient facts that, if proved, would demonstrate appellate counsel was objectively unreasonable in failing to discover and raise a nonfrivolous issue on direct appeal. 18. Postconviction: Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. A motion for postconviction relief based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise on direct appeal trial counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct fails when it does not allege that appellate counsel knew or should have known to raise the issue. 19. Postconviction: Proof: Appeal and Error. To show prejudice from the alleged deficient conduct of appellate counsel, an inmate on postconvic- tion must allege supporting facts for the assertion that raising the issue on direct appeal would have changed the outcome. 20. ____: ____: ____. An inmate on postconviction must show a reason- able probability that, but for his or her appellate counsel’s failure to properly raise the issue on appeal, the result of the appeal would have been different. 21. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. If trial counsel was not ineffective, then the defendant was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise on direct appeal the issue of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. 22. Trial: Attorney and Client: Effectiveness of Counsel: Testimony: Waiver. Defense counsel’s advice to waive the right to testify can present a valid claim of ineffective assistance in two instances: (1) if the defendant shows that counsel interfered with his or her freedom to decide to testify or (2) if counsel’s tactical advice to waive the right was unreasonable. 23. Effectiveness of Counsel. As a matter of law, counsel is not ineffective for not attempting to adduce inadmissible testimony. 24. Evidence. Evidence that is not relevant is inadmissible. Appeal from the District Court for Chase County: Patrick M. Heng, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Eickholt, of Eickholt Law, L.L.C., for appellant. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee. Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, and Vaughn, JJ., and Hoeft, District Judge.  - 655 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 Freudenberg, J. I. INTRODUCTION The defendant appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief without an eviden- tiary hearing. He raised in his motion issues of ineffective assistance of counsel, primarily layered claims, involving (1) trial counsel’s advice leading to his decision not to testify, (2) trial counsel’s failure to object to or seek redaction of certain comments by the defendant in a police interview played for the jury, (3) trial counsel’s failure to adduce a victim’s alleged past acts of prostitution, (4) trial counsel’s failure to chal- lenge his competency during trial when he was not receiving his medication for attention deficit disorder, and (5) appel- late counsel’s failure to present a better argument on appeal pertinent to whether trial counsel was ineffective concern- ing jury instructions on kidnapping and aiding and abetting. We affirm. II. BACKGROUND Kevin S. German was convicted of second degree mur- der and kidnapping of Annika Swanson and of first degree false imprisonment of Eve Ambrosek. The charges were based on events occurring over a 2-day period in November 2019 in Imperial, Nebraska, involving German’s drug dealing and romantic entanglements. German’s girlfriend, Keonna Carter, was involved in the commission of the crimes and testified at trial pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The district court sentenced German to 60 to 80 years’ imprisonment for murder in the sec- ond degree, life imprisonment for kidnapping, and 30 to 36 months’ imprisonment for first degree false imprisonment. German’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. German. 1 German appeals the district court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post- conviction relief. 1 State v. German, 316 Neb. 841, 7 N.W.3d 206 (2024).  - 656 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 1. Trial Facts German’s trial took place in the district court for Chase County, Nebraska, in Imperial. German’s pretrial motion for a change of venue was overruled after the court considered the questionnaires submitted by the venire, and it overruled a renewed motion for change of venue at the close of voir dire. As set forth in more detail in our opinion in German, the jury heard the following evidence at trial: In the summer of 2019, German was living in Louisiana and was in a relation- ship with both Carter and Ambrosek, telling each of them that the relationship with the other was over. Carter lived in Colorado, and Ambrosek lived in Imperial. German and Ambrosek both sold drugs. In September 2019, German moved back to Imperial, where Ambrosek introduced German to Russ Mann, who also sold drugs. Mann lived with Swanson in a trailer where they used methamphetamine daily. German knew Swanson from when they attended high school together in Imperial. Over the next couple of months, Mann regularly gave German methamphetamine in exchange for cocaine. Ambrosek suspected that German was still in a relationship with Carter and eventually ended the relationship. German moved in with Carter in Colorado but made frequent trips to Imperial to deliver drugs to Mann. German was becom- ing upset with Swanson because she was a “busy body” who could not “keep her mouth shut” and was interfering with their drug dealing. On November 12, 2019, German and Carter were at Mann’s trailer when Swanson received a text from Ambrosek, seeking drugs. Swanson told German, in Carter’s presence, that his “girlfriend” was texting her. Apparently Ambrosek owed German money, so he took Swanson’s phone and pre- tended to be Swanson to set up a meeting with Ambrosek. German drove to the designated meeting point, where he told Ambrosek to get into Carter’s car. Carter was in the passen- ger seat. While German drove and held a gun, Carter yelled at Ambrosek and hit her. They eventually stopped at land  - 657 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 belonging to German’s family, where German and Carter assaulted Ambrosek and gave her the choice of being either killed or prostituted out. Ambrosek agreed to prostitute her- self and they returned Ambrosek to Mann’s trailer. The next morning, November 13, 2019, Ambrosek and Swanson were kept at the trailer against their will. At some point, Swanson and Carter spoke alone and Swanson told Carter that German and Ambrosek had a sexual relationship in September and October 2019. Carter became angry. At Carter’s urging, she and German left to return to Colorado, but Carter confronted German about his relationship with Ambrosek while they were in the car. German became very angry with Swanson, claiming she was lying, and drove back to Mann’s trailer. When German and Carter arrived at Mann’s trailer, German dragged Swanson outside, put her in the back of the car, and drove off. German eventually stopped the car along a gravel road after Swanson said something that upset German further. He pulled Swanson out of the car, and both German and Carter physically assaulted her. After Carter stepped on Swanson’s neck, Swanson’s “pulse just got weak.” German and Carter put Swanson in the trunk of the car, and German drove again to his family’s land, this time to a place where a vertical pipe protruded from the ground. While they were driving, Carter heard Swanson moan. When they let Swanson out of the trunk, Carter heard German tell Swanson to drink something. Carter said there was a con- tainer of windshield wiper fluid in the car. German next told Swanson to get into the pipe, and after Swanson did so, Carter saw German ignite some items and throw them into the pipe while Swanson repeatedly said, “‘[N]o.’” German and Carter returned to Mann’s trailer, where German told Mann that Swanson was somewhere no one would find her. The court admitted into evidence and played for the jury a recording of German’s custodial interview with law enforce- ment when they were searching for Swanson’s whereabouts after her father reported her as missing. German said that, on  - 658 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 the night in question, he drove Swanson out of town to get her out of a bad situation. German said he dropped Swanson off and speculated she “either ran off with a Mexican dude . . . or she got killed.” During the interview, German commented that he was “the only black kid” growing up in the small town of Imperial, where he learned what racism was “real quick.” He also commented that because “people know people,” the police did not do their jobs, and that the police and sheriff were cor- rupt. Finally, German said that his family was well off and that people expected him to “hand out money or something.” Swanson’s body was eventually found in a horizonal struc- ture that was connected to the vertical pipe, which was part of a culvert system. The State’s expert witness testified that Swanson’s cause of death was blunt force head injuries and methanol and methamphetamine toxicity. The expert opined that the methanol was at a fatal level and that the methamphet- amine was a contributing factor. Windshield wiper fluid con- tains methanol, and evidence retrieved from the scene included a bottle containing methanol. German did not testify in his own defense. Before the case was submitted to the jury for deliberations, an on-the-record discussion with German documented his decision not to testify in his own defense. German confirmed he and defense counsel had discussed the matter on “a number of occasions” and that he understood his right to testify. German stated he was not pressured by defense counsel not to testify; rather, it was a decision he made because he believed it to be the appropriate choice under the circumstances. Defense counsel argued to the jury that Carter and Swanson engaged in a fight that contributed to Swanson’s eventual death. Other than Carter’s testimony, there was no evidence German attacked Swanson, “knew what was going to happen between these two women, or what . . . Carter was going to do[,] or encouraged it or approved of it.” Defense counsel made several arguments undermining the credibility of the witnesses against German, especially Carter and Ambrosek.  - 659 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 Defense counsel asserted that Carter had a motive to lie and that it was Carter, not German, who made Swanson drink the windshield wiper fluid. Regardless, neither German nor Carter necessarily knew windshield wiper fluid could cause serious injury or death. The court instructed the jury, “You must not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence your verdict.” It gave a step instruc- tion for homicide with a corresponding aiding and abetting instruction. The aiding and abetting instruction given for the charges of first degree murder, second degree murder, and man- slaughter was based on NJI2d Crim. 3.8. The court instructed that German could be guilty even though he personally did not commit every act involved in the crime, so long as he aided someone else to commit it, explaining that German aided someone else to commit the crime of murder if (1) he inten- tionally encouraged or intentionally helped another person to commit the crime and (2) he intended that the crime be com- mitted or knew the other person intended to commit the crime and (3) the crime was in fact committed by that other person. The court also explained: “Mere encouragement or assistance is sufficient. On the other hand, the evidence of mere presence, acquiescence, or silence is not enough to sustain the State’s burden of proving [German] guilty.” The court instructed the jury that the elements of second degree murder were that German, either independently or while aiding and abetting another, intentionally, but without premedi- tation or the provocation of a sudden quarrel, killed Swanson. The court instructed that the elements of kidnapping were that German either independently or while aiding and abetting another did abduct Swanson or, having abducted her, continued to restrain her, and that he did so with the intent to terrorize her or to commit a felony. The aiding and abetting instruction corresponding to the kidnapping instruction was similar to the one for homicide.  - 660 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 The trial court refused trial counsel’s tendered aiding and abetting instructions, which closely followed the language from State v. Ramsay, 2 wherein we held that an aider and abettor can be liable as a principal for a crime requiring proof of a particular intent only if it is shown that the aider and abettor knew that the perpetrator of the act possessed the required intent or that the aider and abettor himself possessed such intent: When the elements of a crime charged require proof of the existence of a particular intent, an alleged aider or abettor can be held criminally liable as a principal only if it is shown that the aider and abettor knew that the perpe- trator of the act possessed the required intent, or that the aider and abettor himself possessed such intent. Additionally, trial counsel proposed to add “[i]ntentional” before “[m]anslaughter,” which the trial court refused. 2. Interrelated Claims Made on Direct Appeal and on Postconviction Following the jury’s verdict, German, with new counsel, appealed, assigning 11 errors, including 8 instances of ineffec- tive assistance of trial counsel. Several of the errors assigned by appellate counsel on direct appeal are related to claims in German’s motion for postconviction relief. Broadly, these fall into three categories: the instructions, the police interview statements, and German’s decision not to testify. (a) Instructions The instructions were the source of several challenges on direct appeal, as well as a layered claim in the postconviction motion. These challenges focused on the manslaughter, aid- ing and abetting, and kidnapping instructions and revolved around arguments that the jury (1) was permitted to find German guilty under an aiding and abetting theory without the necessary intent and (2) was not required to determine 2 State v. Ramsay, 257 Neb. 430, 598 N.W.2d 51 (1999).  - 661 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 whether German liberated Swanson alive in a safe place with- out her having suffered serious bodily injury. (i) Direct Appeal a. Aiding and Abetting Instructions We found no merit on direct appeal to German’s appellate counsel’s allegation that the trial court erred by refusing to give trial counsel’s tendered instructions on aiding and abet- ting. We held that while the language proposed by German was a correct statement of the law, a court should usually give the applicable instruction in the Nebraska Jury Instructions, and the court’s instruction based on NJI2d Crim. 3.8 was a fair, impartial, and complete statement of the applicable law. We held that this instruction was compliant with Ramsay; in fact, we could “discern no significant difference between the instructions given and German’s requested instructions.” 3 b. Manslaughter and Kidnapping Instructions Relatedly, we found no merit to appellate counsel’s chal- lenges to the trial court’s decision rejecting his tendered instruction on “[i]ntentional [m]anslaughter” and to trial counsel’s failure to object to the kidnapping jury instruction or tender an appropriate instruction on kidnapping. Appellate counsel argued that the instructions for homicide and kidnap- ping were both problematic because they incorporated an unintentional form of manslaughter as a possible predicate felony. Appellate counsel argued that any conviction of homi- cide or kidnapping through aiding and abetting “‘must be affixed to intentional crimes’” 4 and that because of the “unin- tentional . . . manslaughter” instruction, they possibly were not. 5 We reasoned that German could not establish prejudice 3 State v. German, supra note 1, 316 Neb. at 858, 7 N.W.3d at 222. See State v. Ramsey, supra note 2. 4 State v. German, supra note 1, 316 Neb. at 859, 7 N.W.3d at 222. 5 Id. at 858, 7 N.W.3d at 222.  - 662 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 with respect to either the alleged trial error or the alleged deficient conduct of trial counsel, because the jury found him guilty of second degree murder. We explained that, under the step instructions, the jury never considered “unintentional” manslaughter as the predicate felony. c. Challenge That Jury Was Not Required to Make Factual Findings Under Statute Lastly, as relates to the instructions, appellate counsel chal- lenged the trial court’s failure to require the jury, in determin- ing German’s guilt on the charge of kidnapping, to make the factual findings that would distinguish the crime as either a Class IA felony or a Class II felony under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-313 (Reissue 2016). Appellate counsel also challenged trial counsel’s failure to object to the kidnapping instruction or tender an appropriate kidnapping instruction that would require the jury to make these findings. Counsel pointed to § 28-313, which states that except as provided in subsection (3) thereof, kidnapping is a Class IA felony. Section 28-313(3) states: “If the person kidnapped was voluntarily released or liberated alive by the abductor and in a safe place without having suffered serious bodily injury, prior to trial, kidnap- ping is a Class II felony.” Appellate counsel argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 6 which held that any fact altering the legally prescribed punishment to aggravate it must be determined by the jury, applied to whether the person kidnapped was voluntarily released or liberated alive by the abductor in a safe place without having suffered serious bodily injury. In affirming, we held that we need not determine the broader question of whether the jury must determine if the vic- tim was voluntarily released or liberated alive by the abductor in a safe place without having suffered serious bodily injury, 6 Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 (2013).  - 663 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 because the jury necessarily rejected the idea that Swanson was released in a safe place without having suffered serious bodily injury when it found German guilty of the separate charge of second degree murder. In other words, German was not prejudiced by the instructions given. (ii) Motion for Postconviction Relief In his motion for postconviction relief, German made a nuanced layered claim with respect to the alleged errors in the instructions on both kidnapping and aiding and abetting. German asserted that appellate counsel failed to “clearly and effectively” argue the connection between the erroneous wording of the aiding and abetting instruction and the errone- ous kidnapping instruction. German asserted that because of this deficient performance, we failed to consider the interplay of the kidnapping and aiding and abetting instructions when finding no merit to the assigned errors on direct appeal chal- lenging the instructions. More specifically, German suggested that, because of appel- late counsel’s deficient argument on appeal, we failed to con- sider the wording of the aiding and abetting instruction when holding there was no prejudice from the kidnapping instruc- tion. German elaborated that because the jury instruction on aiding and abetting stated he could be guilty of second degree murder by mere encouragement or assistance, the jury could have found, under an aiding and abetting theory, that German was guilty of second degree murder without necessarily find- ing German intended, or knew that Carter intended, death. If that was so, then the jury did not, in finding German guilty of second degree murder, necessarily find the requisite mens rea for kidnapping as a Class IA felony carrying a mandatory life sentence. German also asserted in his motion for postconviction relief that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to assign and argue trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a motion  - 664 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 for new trial on the kidnapping charge due to the allegedly erroneous instruction. (iii) Postconviction Order The district court found that German’s postconviction claim based on the failure to instruct the jury to determine whether Swanson was liberated alive was raised and decided on direct appeal and, thus, was procedurally barred. Likewise, the court found that the claim that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to argue the connection between the allegedly errone- ous wording of the aiding and abetting instruction and the allegedly erroneous kidnapping instruction had been necessar- ily addressed in the direct appeal. And if trial counsel was not ineffective, then German could not have been prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue. (b) Interview Statements Both on direct appeal and in his postconviction motion, German raised ineffective assistance claims relating to the admission of certain statements from his police interview. (i) Direct Appeal German’s appellate counsel raised on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective by not objecting to or seeking to redact certain comments German made during the police interview. These included statements critical of Imperial, the people in that community, and local law enforcement. We said, “While German’s comments may have been only minimally relevant, he does not explain how they were unfairly prejudicial.” 7 We held that the record was insufficient to address this assignment of error because appellate counsel is not required on direct appeal to argue prejudice, and the record does not disclose trial counsel’s reasons for not objecting to or seeking redaction of the statements. 7 State v. German, supra note 1, 316 Neb. at 866, 7 N.W.3d at 226.  - 665 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 (ii) Motion for Postconviction Relief German reiterated in his motion for postconviction relief that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to or move to redact German’s statements in his police interviews, which statements were critical of Imperial, the people in that community, and local law enforcement, including comments that the people in the community were racist and resentful of his family’s success. He argued the statements were irrel- evant and unfairly prejudicial because they put German “in an unfavorable light with the jury.” Thus, they were inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-401 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016). German also mentioned that the audio was difficult to hear and unaccompanied by a transcript, which “confounded the issue of the unredacted and not relevant statements.” German argued that the risk of undue prejudice from the statements was high because the trial took place in a small community and that “[t]he jury may have felt that [he] was rude, spoiled, [and] entitled, and lacked empathy to the community in his criticisms and comments of Imperial and Chase County.” (iii) Postconviction Order In denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing, the district court reasoned that the motion lacked the necessary specificity on how German was prejudiced from the state- ments concerning racism, the community, and law enforce- ment. The court alternatively reasoned that the record and files affirmatively show German is entitled to no relief, not- ing that German had ignored the jury selection “in which race, [German’s] family and the small community were con- sistent themes for the jurors,” as well as “the instruction that the jurors are to not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence their verdict[s].” (c) Advice on Waiving Right to Testify Lastly, as relates to claims attempted on direct appeal, German alleged in his postconviction motion a layered claim  - 666 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 concerning advice by trial counsel that led to German’s deci- sion not to testify in his own defense. (i) Direct Appeal Appellate counsel assigned in direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to provide reasonable advice neces- sary for German to make a meaningful decision to waive the right to testify. Appellate counsel generally argued that trial counsel failed to properly explain the relative advantages or disadvantages of testifying. However, appellate counsel did not set forth any specific advice that was given or not given. We held that the claim lacked the specificity required to be consid- ered on direct appeal. (ii) Motion for Postconviction Relief In his motion for postconviction relief, German alleged appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to adequately raise on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to advise him to testify. To add the specificity lacking on direct appeal, German alleged on postconviction that trial counsel informed him of his right to testify, but that he told his trial counsel that testifying would not make any difference in his case and “[t]rial counsel did not rebut or challenge [German’s] assertion.” German alleged that it was unreason- able for trial counsel not to explain with particularity how tes- tifying would have been beneficial and that he “detrimentally relied upon trial counsel’s improper advice to not testify.” German asserted that trial counsel failed to advise him how presenting this testimony would have given German an oppor- tunity to contradict the testimony of Carter, Ambrosek, Mann, and other witnesses and to convince the jury that Carter assaulted and attacked Swanson. To further illustrate how testifying would have been benefi- cial, German asserted in his motion for postconviction relief that he would have told the jury Carter was angry and jealous of Swanson, Swanson went voluntarily with him and Carter  - 667 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 in the car so they could all talk, German later stopped the car during an argument when Swanson set his hair on fire, and Swanson then climbed into the front seat, at which point Carter became angry, pulled Swanson from the car, and assaulted her, ultimately stepping on her neck. German would have further testified that “he did not intend to kill [Swanson] and did not know what Carter’s intent was when she was harming and assaulting [Swanson]”; to the contrary, he tried to revive Swanson but could not, so he put her in the trunk. He would have testified he was relieved when he heard her cough and move and stopped the car and helped her out. He would have testified that Carter directed Swanson to drink something, which “turned out to be windshield wiper fluid.” German would have testified he then dropped Swanson off on his par- ents’ land, to avoid another confrontation, and told Swanson to either wait in the culvert, which he thought of as a safe place, or walk to a nearby house. Also, German alleged testifying would have “provided an opportunity for [him] to explain why he said what he said in his interview with police and why he seemingly disparaged the community and its people.” He did not elaborate on this last point. (iii) Postconviction Order In its order denying postconviction relief without an eviden- tiary hearing, the district court reasoned that German had failed to explain how the testimony he would have given would have changed the outcome of the trial. Further, German stated dur- ing the documented discussion regarding waiving his right to testify that he was not pressured by counsel and had made on his own the decision not to testify, which statement, the court said, “contradicts his position in this Motion.” Finally, the court found that, like the petitioner in State v. Golyar, 8 German failed to allege how trial counsel’s advice not to testify was unreasonable, given the testimony he could have given. 8 State v. Golyar, 301 Neb. 488, 919 N.W.2d 133 (2018).  - 668 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 3. Claims Made for First Time on Postconviction Lastly, German made two layered claims in his motion for postconviction relief based on appellate counsel’s failure to raise on direct appeal trial counsel’s failures to adduce evi- dence of Ambrosek’s alleged past acts of prostitution and of German’s alleged incapacity because he was not given medica- tion for his attention deficit disorder (ADD). (a) Ambrosek’s Alleged Prior Prostitution (i) Postconviction Allegations German made a layered claim that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to assign and argue on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to adduce evidence that Ambrosek had engaged in acts of prostitution before the events of November 12 and 13, 2019. German set forth in his motion, “Assuming trial counsel was aware that [Ambrosek] had provided sexual services” in exchange for things of value, trial counsel was ineffective by not trying to adduce this at trial. German reasoned he was prejudiced because the jury likely assumed the prospect of being a prostitute was “terrifying” for Ambrosek, “mak[ing her more] sympathetic to the jury” and providing an explanation as to why Ambrosek “acted the way she did and would support the charge of kidnapping or false imprisonment.” German summarized that “the fact that [Ambrosek] had been a prostitute before likely would have impacted the jury much differently and not seemed as so ter- rifying, and certainly the jury would not think it was terrifying to [Ambrosek].” Regarding trial counsel’s knowledge of Ambrosek’s past acts of prostitution for drugs, German elaborated he “believes he told his trial attorney(s) about [Ambrosek] providing sexual services . . . but he is not certain.” Nevertheless, he con- tended it was “safe to assume” that trial counsel was aware of Ambrosek’s “propensity to provide sexual services” because  - 669 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GERMAN Cite as 321 Neb. 652 trial counsel was aware of sexual recordings subject to a “revenge porn situation” between Ambrosek and “her former lover,” which stemmed from the fact that Ambrosek “had recorded herself in sexual activity and provided the recording to others.” German made no allegations concerning appell