State v. Schwaderer , 296 Neb. 932 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    08/18/2017 01:09 AM CDT
    - 932 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Robert L. Schwaderer, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed June 16, 2017.    No. S-16-501.
    1.	 Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews the
    trial court’s conclusions with regard to evidentiary foundation and wit-
    ness qualification for an abuse of discretion.
    2.	 Rules of Evidence: Hearsay: Appeal and Error. Apart from rulings
    under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for
    clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay rul-
    ing and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit
    evidence over a hearsay objection.
    3.	 Jury Instructions: Appeal and Error. Whether jury instructions are
    correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves indepen-
    dently of the lower court’s decision.
    4.	 Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. Whether a claim of inef-
    fective assistance of trial counsel may be determined on direct appeal is
    a question of law.
    5.	 ____: ____. In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on
    direct appeal, an appellate court decides only questions of law: Are the
    undisputed facts contained within the record sufficient to conclusively
    determine whether counsel did or did not provide effective assistance
    and whether the defendant was or was not prejudiced by counsel’s
    alleged deficient performance?
    6.	 Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evi-
    dence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a com-
    bination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not
    resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or
    reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact.
    7.	 Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen-
    tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion
    by the trial court.
    - 933 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    8.	 Convictions: Proof. To sustain a conviction based on information
    derived from an electronic or mechanical measuring device, there must
    be reasonable proof that the measuring device was accurate and func-
    tioning properly.
    9.	 Evidence: Proof. The requirement of authentication or identification
    as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence suf-
    ficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its propo-
    nent claims.
    10.	 Rules of Evidence: Proof. A proponent of evidence is not required to
    conclusively prove the genuineness of the evidence or to rule out all
    possibilities inconsistent with authenticity.
    11.	 ____: ____. If the proponent’s showing is sufficient to support a finding
    that the evidence is what it purports to be, the proponent has satisfied
    the requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 2016).
    12.	 Rules of Evidence: Circumstantial Evidence: Proof. Under Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 27-901(2)(d) (Reissue 2016), a proponent may authenticate
    a document by circumstantial evidence, or its appearance, contents,
    substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in
    conjunction with circumstances.
    13.	 Trial: Appeal and Error. On appeal, a defendant may not assert a dif-
    ferent ground for his or her objection than was offered at trial.
    14.	 Trial: Hearsay: Proof. It is best practice, when overruling a hearsay
    objection on the ground that an out-of-court statement is not received for
    the truth of the matter asserted, for a trial court to identify the specific
    nonhearsay purpose for which the out-of-court statement is relevant
    and probative.
    15.	 Trial: Waiver: Appeal and Error. Failure to make a timely objection
    waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal.
    16.	 Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. When a defendant’s trial
    counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defend­
    ant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective
    performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the
    record; otherwise, the issue will be procedurally barred.
    17.	 Effectiveness of Counsel: Postconviction: Records: Appeal and
    Error. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct
    appeal when the claim alleges deficient performance with enough partic-
    ularity for (1) an appellate court to make a determination of whether the
    claim can be decided upon the trial record and (2) a district court later
    reviewing a petition for postconviction relief will recognize whether the
    claim was brought before the appellate court.
    18.	 Effectiveness of Counsel: Records: Appeal and Error. The fact that
    an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal
    - 934 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    does not necessarily mean that it can be resolved. The determin-
    ing factor is whether the record is sufficient to adequately review
    the question.
    19.	 Postconviction: Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof: Appeal and Error.
    To establish a right to postconviction relief because of counsel’s inef-
    fective assistance, the defendant has the burden, in accordance with
    Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 674
    (1984), to show that counsel’s performance was deficient; that is,
    counsel’s performance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary train-
    ing and skill in criminal law. Next, the defendant must show that coun-
    sel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense in his or her case. To
    show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability
    that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding
    would have been different. A court may address the two prongs of this
    test, deficient performance and prejudice, in either order.
    20.	 Effectiveness of Counsel. As a matter of law, counsel cannot be ineffec-
    tive for failing to raise a meritless argument.
    Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Lori
    A. M aret, Judge. Affirmed.
    Joe Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Yohance
    Christie for appellant.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss
    for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy,
    K elch, and Funke, JJ.
    Cassel, J.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    In this direct appeal, Robert L. Schwaderer challenges his
    drug-related convictions and sentences. He raises numerous
    issues, but we focus primarily on (1) the admissibility of evi-
    dence of drug weights and “owe notes” and (2) the propriety
    of jury admonishments and instructions. Because we find no
    prejudicial error, we affirm the judgment. We also reject three
    claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and decline to
    reach a fourth claim because the record is not sufficient.
    - 935 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    II. BACKGROUND
    1. A rrest and Charges
    Schwaderer was arrested for driving under suspension and
    false reporting. A search incident to his arrest yielded a sig-
    nificant amount of packaged methamphetamine, approximately
    $3,300 in cash, a digital scale, empty baggies, and several
    notebooks and notepads. A later search of his person at the
    county jail produced another smaller amount of separately
    packaged methamphetamine. Schwaderer was then charged
    with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, at
    least 28 grams but less than 140 grams; possession of money
    to be used, violating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(1) (Supp. 2015)
    (drug money); and false reporting.
    2. Trial
    At trial, Schwaderer did not contest his actual possession
    of the methamphetamine but he alleged that he was only a
    user and did not possess the controlled substance with intent
    to deliver. Therefore, the main issues at trial were (1) whether
    Schwaderer was a seller—rather than a mere user—of meth-
    amphetamine and (2) how much methamphetamine he actu-
    ally possessed.
    (a) “Owe Notes”
    The State offered the seized notebooks and notepads into
    evidence as indicative of sales of narcotics. Schwaderer
    objected to their admittance on authentication, foundation,
    relevance, and hearsay grounds. The court overruled the objec-
    tions, received the items into evidence as exhibits 11 through
    15, and soon thereafter recessed for the day. The following
    morning, the court revisited its ruling. When the jurors were
    seated, the court instructed as follows:
    Jurors, yesterday, as a part of the evidence received by
    the Court, the Court did receive Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 14
    and 15.
    I’m, at this time, giving a cautionary instruction
    regarding those exhibits. The Court has received those
    - 936 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    exhibits not for the truth of the matter asserted in
    the statements contained within those exhibits, but has
    received those exhibits for the purposes of trial today.
    The State later called on an individual who had previously
    worked for the Lincoln/Lancaster County Narcotics Unit to
    explain the significance of the writings within the notebooks
    and notepads and to testify to the general practices of nar-
    cotics dealers. He testified as an expert witness and opined
    that the notebooks were records of narcotics sales and that
    they, taken with the large amount of methamphetamine and
    cash found on Schwaderer, indicated that Schwaderer sold
    methamphetamine.
    The expert witness testified that through his work with the
    narcotics unit, he became familiar with “the drug culture” and
    the terms and procedures used for sales of narcotics. When the
    State attempted to elicit testimony from him concerning the
    meaning of words similar to those found within the notepads,
    Schwaderer objected on relevance and a side bar discussion
    was held. Schwaderer reminded the court that the notepads
    were received with the limiting instruction that they were not
    to be considered for the truth of the matter asserted within.
    He therefore objected to the witness’ testimony as unfairly
    and highly prejudicial. The State responded that the testimony
    “can be used to explain the items in those notebooks,” and the
    court overruled the objection. The court later explained, dur-
    ing another side bar discussion, its understanding of the limit-
    ing instruction:
    The cautionary instruction was they’ve — those exhibits
    were received not for the truth of the matter asserted
    in the statements contained within those exhibits. For
    example, if Joe Blow — if it says Joe Blow owes me
    $25 for an eight ball, it’s not the truth of that asserted
    fact that Joe Blow actually does owe me $25 for that
    eight ball. That was what the cautionary instruction was
    going to.
    - 937 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    For any other purpose, that it illustrates something else,
    that it — for any other purpose, it is received.
    Over Schwaderer’s objections, the notebooks and notepads
    were then published to the jury. The expert witness examined
    each page and testified to his opinion as to what various terms
    and phrases contained within meant. He concluded that the
    notebooks and notepads were consistent with ledgers for trans-
    actions involving controlled substances that he had seen in
    past narcotics investigations.
    In the final instructions to the jury, instruction No. 8 stated:
    “Exhibits #11, #12, #13, #14, and #15 have been admitted for
    the limited purpose of showing the character and use of the
    location where they were found and not for the truth of any
    matters asserted in Exhibits #11, #12, #13, #14 and #15.”
    (b) Weight of Methamphetamine
    While the State repeatedly emphasized that the “owe notes”
    were “consistent with the sales of methamphetamine,” it also
    heavily relied on the large amount of methamphetamine as
    showing an intent to distribute for sale.
    A forensic scientist testified to the processing and testing
    of the substance found on Schwaderer. The forensic scientist
    testified that the substance tested positive for methamphet-
    amine. She additionally testified to the methods used to weigh
    the methamphetamine and the calibrations and tests done on
    the scales used. She testified that the large amount of pack-
    aged methamphetamine weighed 34.06 grams, plus or minus
    0.15 grams, and that the separate smaller amount of pack-
    aged methamphetamine weighed 0.3580 grams, plus or minus
    0.0056 grams.
    The forensic scientist additionally testified to the purity
    analysis conducted on the methamphetamine. The court
    received into evidence the scientist’s report that showed the
    purity testing confirmed the large amount of packaged meth-
    amphetamine to be at least 31 grams of actual, undiluted
    methamphetamine. During closing argument, the State noted
    - 938 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    that this amount of methamphetamine would be about 170
    doses of methamphetamine and that a simple user would not
    have that much with them at any given time.
    3. Convictions and Sentences
    On this evidence, the jury found Schwaderer guilty of pos-
    session with intent to deliver methamphetamine, at least 28
    grams but less than 140 grams; possession of drug money;
    and false reporting. The court sentenced Schwaderer to con-
    current sentences of 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment for pos-
    session with intent to deliver, 2 to 2 years’ imprisonment for
    possession of drug money, and 1 to 1 year’s imprisonment for
    false reporting.
    Schwaderer timely appealed, and we moved the appeal to
    our docket.1
    III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Schwaderer alleges, restated, that (1) the district court
    erred in (a) admitting testimony regarding the weight of the
    methamphetamine, (b) admitting the notebooks and note-
    pads seized from Schwaderer’s vehicle into evidence, (c) its
    instructions to the jury, and (d) admitting expert testimony;
    (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel “as a result
    of the acts and omissions of . . . trial counsel”; (3) there was
    insufficient evidence; and (4) the sentences imposed were
    excessive.
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] An appellate court reviews the trial court’s conclusions
    with regard to evidentiary foundation and witness qualifica-
    tion for an abuse of discretion.2
    [2] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception,
    an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings
    1
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Reissue 2016).
    2
    State v. Richardson, 
    285 Neb. 847
    , 
    830 N.W.2d 183
    (2013).
    - 939 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de
    novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence
    over a hearsay objection.3
    [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law,
    which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower
    court’s decision.4
    [4,5] Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial coun-
    sel may be determined on direct appeal is a question of law.5 In
    reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
    appeal, an appellate court decides only questions of law: Are
    the undisputed facts contained within the record sufficient to
    conclusively determine whether counsel did or did not provide
    effective assistance and whether the defendant was or was not
    prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance?6
    [6] In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether
    the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof,
    the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve
    conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses,
    or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder
    of fact.7
    [7] We will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statu-
    tory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.8
    V. ANALYSIS
    1. Weight of Methamphetamine
    Schwaderer first alleges that the district court erred by
    allowing testimony of the weight of the methamphetamine
    found on Schwaderer. He argues that such testimony should
    have been excluded because it was based on hearsay, lacked
    3
    State   v. Hale, 
    290 Neb. 70
    , 
    858 N.W.2d 543
    (2015).
    4
    State   v. Custer, 
    292 Neb. 88
    , 
    871 N.W.2d 243
    (2015).
    5
    State   v. Parnell, 
    294 Neb. 551
    , 
    883 N.W.2d 652
    (2016).
    6
    Id.
    7
    State   v. Draper, 
    295 Neb. 88
    , 
    886 N.W.2d 266
    (2016).
    8
    
    Id. - 940
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    sufficient foundation, and violated his right of confrontation.
    He suggests that the witness lacked personal knowledge of
    the calibration because she testified that an outside company
    calibrates the scales twice a year. But, he does not account for
    the same witness’ testimony as to the other procedures used to
    verify the accuracy and reliability of the scales.
    [8] To sustain a conviction based on information derived
    from an electronic or mechanical measuring device, there must
    be reasonable proof that the measuring device was accurate and
    functioning properly.9 And there was.
    Assuming that it was error to allow the witness to testify
    to the calibration done by an outside company, such error was
    harmless, because the accuracy of the scales had already been
    established. The witness provided sufficient foundation of per-
    sonal knowledge concerning calibration procedures performed
    by the laboratory and the witness herself. She testified that she
    personally used a known weight to measure the accuracy and
    variability of the scales used to weigh the methamphetamine.
    She further testified that she would use a known weight on a
    daily and monthly basis to check the accuracy of the scales.
    Though she did not classify such procedures as “calibration,”
    we agree with the district court that the procedures met the
    definition of calibration and were sufficient to show the accu-
    racy of the scales.
    The testimony provided identified the time period during
    which the scales were tested against known weights and estab-
    lished that the scales were operating correctly. Therefore, there
    was sufficient foundation regarding the calibration of the scales
    and the district court did not err in allowing the witness to tes-
    tify to the weight of the methamphetamine.
    2. Notebooks and Notepads
    Schwaderer next assigns that the district court erred in
    admitting the notebooks and notepads found in Schwaderer’s
    vehicle into evidence because they were inadmissible hearsay
    9
    State v. Richardson, supra note 2.
    - 941 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    and were not properly authenticated. Although we have not
    confronted such records, numerous courts have.10 And we fol-
    low their reasoning.
    (a) Hearsay
    Schwaderer alleges that the notebooks and notepads were
    inadmissible hearsay because they “were received for the truth
    of the matter asserted by the declarants,”11 who Schwaderer
    suggests were the testifying officers. We disagree and note
    that this argument relies on a mistaken understanding of the
    definition of hearsay.
    “Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the
    declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in
    evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”12 Therefore,
    the declarant is the author of the writings contained within
    the notebooks and notepads—not the officers testifying to the
    seizure and contents of the notebooks and notepads. And, the
    truth of the matter asserted refers to the statements made by
    the declarant—not the professed reason for why the state-
    ments are offered into evidence.
    The notebooks and notepads appeared to be “owe notes”
    or ledgers evidencing the exchange of money for various
    10
    See, e.g., United States v. Southard, 
    700 F.2d 1
    (1st Cir. 1983) (documents
    containing records of bets not hearsay as proof of scope of defendant’s
    gambling operations), cert. denied sub nom. Ferris v. United States, 
    464 U.S. 823
    , 
    104 S. Ct. 89
    , 
    78 L. Ed. 2d 97
    ; United States v. Wilson, 
    532 F.2d 641
    (8th Cir. 1976) (notebooks containing writings related to various drug
    transactions not hearsay as proof of character and use of place in which
    notebooks were found), cert. denied 
    429 U.S. 846
    , 
    97 S. Ct. 128
    , 
    50 L. Ed. 2d
    117; Collins v. State, 
    977 P.2d 741
    , 746 (Ala. App. 1999) (day planner
    and “drug ledgers” not hearsay as circumstantial evidence that controlled
    substances were distributed on premises); Guerra v. State, 
    897 P.2d 447
          (Wyo. 1995) (letter to defendant detailing proposed drug transaction not
    hearsay as circumstantial evidence that defendant deals in controlled
    substances).
    11
    Brief for appellant at 15.
    12
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016) (emphasis supplied).
    - 942 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    amounts of methamphetamine; they included notes with num-
    bers, names, and addresses. The State offered these notebooks
    and notepads not to prove that a listed individual owed or paid
    money for a certain amount of methamphetamine, but to show
    that Schwaderer possessed the methamphetamine for purposes
    of sale and distribution. Thus, the notebooks and notepads
    were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
    therein and did not constitute hearsay.
    (b) Authentication
    Schwaderer additionally alleges that the notebooks and
    notepads were not properly authenticated, because the State
    did not adduce evidence or testimony establishing “the origin
    of the exhibits, the author of the exhibits, the handwriting in
    the exhibits, or the date the exhibits were created.”13 He con-
    cedes in his brief that the State did adduce testimony establish-
    ing that the notebooks and notepads were the same as those
    found within his vehicle. But, he argues this testimony was
    insufficient to support a finding that the exhibits were what the
    State claimed them to be.
    [9-12] The requirement of authentication or identification as
    a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence
    sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
    what its proponent claims.14 A proponent of evidence is not
    required to conclusively prove the genuineness of the evidence
    or to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity.15
    If the proponent’s showing is sufficient to support a finding
    that the evidence is what it purports to be, the proponent has
    satisfied the requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue
    2016).16 Under § 27-901(2)(d), a proponent may authenticate
    a document by circumstantial evidence, or its “[a]ppearance,
    13
    Brief for appellant at 20.
    14
    State v. Casterline, 
    293 Neb. 41
    , 
    878 N.W.2d 38
    (2016).
    15
    
    Id. 16 Id.
                                        - 943 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive char-
    acteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances.”17
    The State presented the “owe notes” found within
    Schwaderer’s possession as records of drug transactions. The
    State did not claim that Schwaderer authored the notes or was
    involved in the notated transactions, but merely alleged that
    possession of such notes was consistent with drug dealing.
    As such, the State was not required to prove that Schwaderer
    authored the notes or was involved in the transactions.18
    The arresting officer testified that the notebooks and notepads
    presented at trial were the same he seized from Schwaderer’s
    vehicle. And, a witness reviewed the notebooks and notepads
    and explained that the notations and language used within were
    consistent with records of drug transactions, specifically with
    the sale of methamphetamine. This was sufficient to authenti-
    cate the notebooks and notepads under § 27-901(2)(d).
    Because the notebooks and notepads were not hearsay and
    were properly authenticated, the district court did not err in
    admitting them into evidence.
    3. Jury Instructions
    [13] Schwaderer assigns error to the court’s caution-
    ary instruction given at trial and to jury instruction No. 8.
    However, he did not properly preserve these errors for review.
    Schwaderer did not object to the cautionary instruction given
    at trial. And, though he did object to jury instruction No. 8, he
    argued that no instruction should reference the exhibits because
    the exhibits should not have been received into evidence. On
    appeal, he may not assert a different ground for his objection
    than was offered at trial.19
    [14] We cannot find anything clearly erroneous or unduly
    prejudicial in the instructions given. It is best practice, when
    17
    See 
    id. 18 See
    State v. Elseman, 
    287 Neb. 134
    , 
    841 N.W.2d 225
    (2014).
    19
    State v. Samayoa, 
    292 Neb. 334
    , 
    873 N.W.2d 449
    (2015).
    - 944 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    overruling a hearsay objection on the ground that an out-
    of-court statement is not received for the truth of the matter
    asserted, for a trial court to identify the specific nonhear-
    say purpose for which the out-of-court statement is relevant
    and probative.20 However, the cautionary instruction that the
    exhibits were not to be considered by the jury for the truth
    of the matter asserted was sufficient. Likewise, the final jury
    instruction was sufficient, because it specifically instructed
    the jury not to consider the exhibits for the truth of the mat-
    ter asserted.
    The district court’s instructions to the jury, read together
    and taken as a whole, correctly advised the jury that the note-
    books and notepads were not to be considered for the truth of
    the matter asserted. They correctly stated the law, were not
    misleading, and adequately covered the issues raised by the
    evidence. For these reasons, the district court did not err in its
    instructions to the jury.
    4. Expert Testimony
    Schwaderer next alleges that the witness who previously
    worked with the narcotics unit was not an expert witness. He
    argues that the witness was not properly qualified and that
    the court did not follow the proper procedure in determining
    whether expert testimony was admissible. The State argues that
    Schwaderer waived this argument. We agree.
    [15] Failure to make a timely objection waives the right
    to assert prejudicial error on appeal.21 At trial, Schwaderer
    continuously objected to the witness’ testimony on founda-
    tion and relevance grounds and challenged the qualifications
    of the witness during closing argument. But, he never spe-
    cifically objected to the witness’ qualification as an expert
    or asked the court to make specific findings as to the wit-
    ness’ qualifications. And, he cannot assert a new ground for
    20
    See State v. Baker, 
    280 Neb. 752
    , 
    789 N.W.2d 702
    (2010).
    21
    State v. Smith, 
    292 Neb. 434
    , 
    873 N.W.2d 169
    (2016).
    - 945 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    his objection to the witness’ testimony for the first time on
    appeal.22 Therefore, Schwaderer waived his right to assert this
    assignment of error.
    5. Ineffective Assistance
    of Counsel Claims
    (a) Preliminary Matters
    [16,17] Schwaderer is represented on direct appeal by differ-
    ent counsel than the counsel who represented him at trial. When
    a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel
    on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any
    issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known
    to the defendant or is apparent from the record; otherwise, the
    issue will be procedurally barred.23 An ineffective assistance
    of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal when the claim
    alleges deficient performance with enough particularity for
    (1) an appellate court to make a determination of whether the
    claim can be decided upon the trial record and (2) a district
    court later reviewing a petition for postconviction relief will
    recognize whether the claim was brought before the appel-
    late court.24
    [18] The fact that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
    is raised on direct appeal does not necessarily mean that it can
    be resolved.25 The determining factor is whether the record is
    sufficient to adequately review the question.26
    Schwaderer asserts several claims of ineffective assistance
    of counsel. A few of his claims overlap and have been com-
    bined and restated for review. Schwaderer alleges that he
    received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel
    failed to (1) renew his motion to suppress at trial, (2) obtain
    22
    See State v. Samayoa, supra note 19.
    23
    State v. Loding, ante p. 670, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2017).
    24
    
    Id. 25 State
    v. Parnell, supra note 5.
    26
    
    Id. - 946
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    independent testing and weighing of the methamphetamine,
    (3) request a preliminary hearing and specific findings on the
    qualifications of the State’s expert witness, and (4) object to
    the State’s closing argument, which was inconsistent with the
    limiting instruction on exhibits 11 through 15.
    The record is insufficient to address his second claim con-
    cerning the failure to obtain independent testing and weighing
    of the methamphetamine, but the record is sufficient to resolve
    the remaining three claims.
    (b) Strickland Analysis
    [19] To establish a right to postconviction relief because
    of counsel’s ineffective assistance, the defendant has the bur-
    den, in accordance with Strickland v. Washington,27 to show
    that counsel’s performance was deficient; that is, counsel’s
    perform­ance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary train-
    ing and skill in criminal law.28 Next, the defendant must show
    that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense in
    his or her case.29 To show prejudice, the defendant must dem-
    onstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient
    performance, the result of the proceeding would have been
    different.30 A court may address the two prongs of this test,
    deficient performance and prejudice, in either order.31
    (i) Failure to Renew
    Motion to Suppress
    Schwaderer alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to renew his motion to suppress at trial and thus waiv-
    ing the issues presented in his motion to suppress. However, he
    cannot show deficient performance or prejudice on this claim.
    27
    Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 
    80 L. Ed. 2d 674
          (1984).
    28
    State v. Ely, 
    295 Neb. 607
    , 
    889 N.W.2d 377
    (2017).
    29
    
    Id. 30 Id.
    31
    
    Id. - 947
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    Schwaderer’s motion to suppress alleged that the warrant-
    less stop, detention, and search of Schwaderer and his vehicle
    were unlawful. The evidence presented at the motion to sup-
    press hearing established that the arresting officer identified
    Schwaderer before making the stop and that the arresting offi-
    cer was advised that Schwaderer had a suspended license. The
    officer thus had reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop.
    Once stopped, the officer approached Schwaderer, identified
    himself as law enforcement, and asked Schwaderer for iden-
    tification. Schwaderer claimed he had no identification and,
    when asked to confirm his name, claimed to be his brother,
    “William Schwaderer.” Because he knew this to be false
    based on the information within the Nebraska Criminal Justice
    Information System, the officer requested another officer in
    the area to come and assist him in detaining and investigat-
    ing Schwaderer.
    The arresting officer asked Schwaderer to exit the vehicle
    to perform a safety pat down, after which he noticed what
    appeared to be a wallet in Schwaderer’s pocket. The officer
    then asked whether Schwaderer had identification in that wal-
    let. At this point, Schwaderer admitted that he was, in fact,
    “Robert Schwaderer” and the arresting officer arrested him for
    driving under suspension and false reporting.
    The arresting officer and the assisting officer conducted
    a valid search incident to arrest for contraband and weapons
    before placing Schwaderer in the police cruiser. The search
    yielded items that the arresting officer testified were “com-
    mon with narcotics use or distribution” and a large amount of
    methamphetamine.
    The assisting officer testified that he then conducted a
    search of the vehicle for further evidence of contraband and
    to inventory the contents prior to the vehicle being towed
    away. That search yielded the notebooks and notepads con-
    taining records of narcotics sales. Because the contraband
    discovered during a lawful search incident to an arrest pro-
    vided the probable cause for the further warrantless search of
    - 948 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    the vehicle, the subsequent search did not violate the Fourth
    Amendment.
    [20] As a matter of law, counsel cannot be ineffective for
    failing to raise a meritless argument.32 Because there was no
    merit in the initial motion to suppress, Schwaderer’s counsel
    was not ineffective for failing to renew the motion at trial.
    (ii) Failure to Object to Expert
    Witness’ Qualifications
    Schwaderer alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to request specific findings and a preliminary hearing
    to determine the qualifications of the State’s expert witness.
    This claim is also without merit because Schwaderer cannot
    show prejudice.
    Even if trial counsel had objected to the witness’ qualifica-
    tions or requested a preliminary hearing, the result would not
    have been different. Under our analysis in State v. Russell,33
    there was sufficient foundation to allow the witness to testify
    to the interpretation of the terms used within the notebooks and
    notepads. The witness’ testimony was rationally based on the
    perception of the witness and the testimony was helpful to the
    determination of a fact in issue.
    Because the witness would have qualified as an expert wit-
    ness, or at the very least would have been allowed to testify to
    the same matters as a lay witness based on his experience and
    perception, Schwaderer was not prejudiced by trial counsel’s
    failure to object to the witness’ qualifications or to request a
    preliminary hearing on the matter.
    (iii) Failure to Object to State’s
    Closing Argument
    Lastly, Schwaderer alleges that his trial counsel was inef-
    fective for failing to object to the State’s closing argument
    insofar as it was inconsistent with jury instruction No. 8.
    32
    
    Id. 33 State
    v. Russell, 
    292 Neb. 501
    , 
    874 N.W.2d 8
    (2016).
    - 949 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    296 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. SCHWADERER
    Cite as 
    296 Neb. 932
    Again, he cannot show deficient performance or prejudice on
    this claim.
    The State’s closing argument referred to the notebooks
    and notepads as “owe notes” and emphasized that the writing
    within was consistent with the distribution of methamphet-
    amine. At no point did the State suggest that the transactions
    notated actually occurred or claimed that the writings were
    proof Schwaderer received the listed amounts of money in
    exchange for methamphetamine. Therefore, the State’s clos-
    ing argument was not inconsistent with jury instruction No. 8,
    which admonished the jury not to consider the notebooks and
    notepads for the truth of the matters asserted.
    Schwaderer’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to
    make a meritless objection to the State’s closing argument.
    Schwaderer has failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel.
    6. R emaining Assignments of Error
    We have carefully considered Schwaderer’s remaining
    claims—that there was insufficient evidence and that he received
    excessive sentences—and find them to be without merit. He
    premises his claim of insufficient evidence on his arguments
    that certain evidence and testimony should have been excluded
    and asserts that the remaining evidence was insufficient to sup-
    port the convictions. We have already rejected these arguments.
    He also failed to establish that the district court abused its dis-
    cretion in imposing his sentences.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the dis-
    trict court did not err in allowing the challenged exhibits
    and testimony into evidence or in its instructions to the jury.
    We also conclude that three of the four claims of ineffective
    assistance of counsel are without merit. The record is insuffi-
    cient to resolve the remaining claim on direct appeal. Because
    Schwaderer’s other assignments of error are without merit, we
    affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A ffirmed.