Court affirms conviction, sentence of Lyman man who stabbed officer (2024)

The Nebraska Court of Appeals has affirmed the convictions and sentence of man convicted of stabbing a Lyman police officer.

Jeremy Torres appealed his felony convictions on charges of attempted first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, second-degree assault on a law enforcement officer and tampering with a witness.

Torres had been convicted in the Sept. 19, 2022, stabbing of Officer Robert Gleim in Lyman. Gleim had responded to an area west of P Street and Huntley Avenue in Lyman upon receiving reports of shots having been fired in the area. He was investigating that report when he made contact with Torres and Torres’ mother.

As Gleim returned to his patrol car, Torres followed him, taking out a knife and stabbing him in the neck behind his left ear. Despite the attack, Gleim was able to reach his Taser and subdued Torres. While in jail after his arrest, Torres called his girlfriend, who had reported the gunshots to police, and told her to recant her statements to police.

As the result of a plea agreement in July 2023, Torres pleaded to amended charges in the case, resulting in his conviction. However, the state had reserved the right to seek a habitual criminal enhancement, which it had filed in November 2022.

Torres had been sentenced in October 2023 to 25 to 30 years in prison on a charge of attempted first-degree murder; 10 to 20 years imprisonment on a charge of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; 10 years for witness tampering and 10-20 years in prison for second-degree assault on an officer. The sentences for attempted first degree murder, second degree assault on an officer, and tampering with a witness were ordered to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively with the use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony conviction. As such, Torres was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 35 to 50 years’ imprisonment.

In his appeal, Torres alleged a Scotts Bluff County District Court judge erred in accepting his pleas without first determining his competence, in failing to order a 90-day evaluation as part of a pre-sentence investigation and in imposing an excessive aggregate sentence. He also alleged he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

After pleading in the case, Torres had sought a 90-day mental health evaluation, which the judge denied. Torres argues that the judge should have ordered the evaluation and that the sentence passed down was excessive. He asserts that his trial counsel should have argued that he was not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Court of Appeals found that the record didn’t indicate any reason for the judge to doubt Torres’ competence to enter his own no contest pleas. Neither Torres nor his defense counsel ever raised the question of the man’s competence in court. Though counsel argued his mental health should be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing, Torres’ counsel also never provided any indication of any concerns that his mental health affected his ability to enter valid pleas and he provided appropriate responses indicating he understood the proceedings. In his plea agreement, he also indicated he was mentally and legally competent.

As part of his pre-sentence report, Torres did submit to evaluation and indicated he had received some treatment since the incident. However, neither he nor his attorney explained how further evaluation would have changed the court’s sentencing determination.

The Court of Appeals found that Torres’ sentence was within the statutory limits as he had been found to be a habitual criminal. As such, each of his felony convictions carried a mandatory minimum term of 10 years imprisonment and a maximum of 60 years imprisonment. The appeals court found that the sentencing judge considered all relevant sentencing factors in its determination. It found the record insufficient to adequately review his claim that his counsel was ineffective.