State v. Blanton, 34 Neb. App. 396

Background

Police executed a search warrant at Blanton’s apartment during a fentanyl-distribution investigation and found controlled substances throughout the shared residence. 1
The State’s evidence included controlled buys tied to Blanton’s apartment, text messages on Blanton’s phone, and drugs found in Blanton’s bedroom and the kitchen. 2
A jury convicted Blanton of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and possession of cocaine. 3
The district court sentenced Blanton to 8 to 10 years for the fentanyl offense and 2 to 2 years for the cocaine offense, to run concurrently. 4
Blanton appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the sentences, and several ineffective-assistance claims. 5

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient for fentanyl distribution and cocaine possession convictions? 6	Blanton said texts never identified the drug and cocaine proof was weakly documented.	The State said circumstantial evidence linked Blanton to fentanyl sales and cocaine in his room.	Sufficient evidence supported both convictions. 7
Were Blanton’s within-guidelines sentences excessive? 8	Blanton argued the court ignored mitigation, including age, history, trauma, and health.	The State said the sentences were within statutory limits and supported by the PSR and offense facts.	No abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed. 9
Were Blanton’s ineffective-assistance claims sufficiently specific on direct appeal? 10	Blanton claimed counsel failed to call witnesses, offer an exhibit, challenge the jury, and avoid a conflict.	The State argued the claims were too vague and unsupported for direct review.	The claims were inadequately pleaded and not reviewed. 11

Key Cases Cited

State v. Liech, 320 Neb. 843, 30 N.W.3d 847 (Neb. 2026) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence and circumstantial-evidence standard 12)
State v. Lopez, 321 Neb. 118, 32 N.W.3d 868 (Neb. 2026) (sentencing abuse-of-discretion and direct-appeal ineffective-assistance standards 13)
State v. Moore, 317 Neb. 493, 10 N.W.3d 531 (Neb. 2024) (intent and knowledge may be inferred from circumstances 14)
State v. Warlick, 308 Neb. 656, 956 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. 2021) (constructive possession may be shown by proximity or dominion 15)
State v. Sherrod, 27 Neb. App. 435, 932 N.W.2d 880 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019) (mere presence is insufficient; facts must affirmatively link defendant to drugs 16)
State v. Greer, 309 Neb. 667, 962 N.W.2d 217 (Neb. 2021) (sentencing court need not make explicit on-record findings on each factor 17)
State v. Rupp, 320 Neb. 502, 28 N.W.3d 74 (Neb. 2025) (direct-appeal ineffective-assistance claims must specifically allege deficient performance 18)
State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb. 192, 21 N.W.3d 615 (Neb. 2025) (record sufficiency for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal 19)
State v. Kruger, 320 Neb. 361, 27 N.W.3d 398 (Neb. 2025) (conclusory briefing does not adequately raise an ineffective-assistance claim 20)
State v. Hagens, 320 Neb. 65, 26 N.W.3d 174 (Neb. 2025) (generic references to witnesses are too vague for ineffective-assistance review 21)
State v. Blake, 310 Neb. 769, 969 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2022) (broad motion-failure allegations are mere placeholders without specific grounds 22)
State v. Haas, 317 Neb. 919, 12 N.W.3d 787 (Neb. 2024) (example of a sufficiently specific motion-to-quash ineffective-assistance claim 23)
State v. Johnson, 314 Neb. 20, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023) (example of a sufficiently specific motion-to-quash ineffective-assistance claim 24)