State v. Archie, 943 N.W.2d 252

David L. Archie was charged with first degree sexual assault for conduct alleged to have occurred between 1996 and 2004 when the victim was under 16; the State amended the charge and Archie pleaded no contest to attempted first degree sexual assault.
In 2019 the victim reported the abuse and produced a recorded phone call in which Archie admitted sexual intercourse with her when she was between 10 and 15 and made statements reflecting pride about sexual conduct with a preadolescent.
The district court accepted Archie’s plea, reviewed a presentence investigation report (including the recorded call transcript), and held a sentencing hearing.
Defense urged a lenient sentence based on rehabilitation and completion of programs during a long intervening incarceration; letters of support were submitted.
The court found the recorded phone calls demonstrated lack of insight and continued dangerousness and sentenced Archie to 18–20 years’ imprisonment (near the statutory maximum).
Archie appealed, arguing (1) the sentence was excessive because the court failed to credit rehabilitation, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 18–20 year sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion	Archie: court failed to account for rehabilitation and positive programming and imposed a near-maximum sentence	State: court considered factors; recorded call and prior sexual-offense convictions show lack of rehabilitation and community danger	Affirmed. Sentence within statutory limits; court considered relevant factors and did not abuse discretion
Whether Archie received ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Archie: counsel was ineffective; specifics later supplied in reply brief	State: Mrza requires specific allegations in the initial brief; reply cannot cure the deficiency; appellee lacked opportunity to respond	Not considered. Court refused to reach the claim because initial brief failed to comply with State v. Mrza and a reply brief cannot raise new, properly pleaded assignments of error

State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019) (direct-appeal ineffective-assistance assignments must specifically allege deficient performance)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228 (2018) (appellate court will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Manjikian, 303 Neb. 100 (2019) (lists sentencing factors and emphasizes subjective nature of appropriateness)
Linscott v. Shasteen, 288 Neb. 276 (2014) (reply brief may not assert new errors)
State v. Guzman, 940 N.W.2d 552 (2020) (refused to consider ineffective-assistance claim raised after Mrza)