State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763

Filholm was convicted of first-degree sexual assault based on DNA and eyewitness testimony; victim AB identified Filholm by voice and prior familiarity.
Trial counsel were from the Lancaster County public defender’s office; on direct appeal Filholm obtained new appellate counsel.
Filholm asserted seven ineffective-assistance claims against trial counsel, including DNA expert testimony, surveillance footage, juror-misconduct motion, and other trial actions.
Court of Appeals held some claims lacked prejudice or the record was insufficient to review on direct appeal.
Nebraska Supreme Court granted review to decide whether prejudice needs to be alleged on direct appeal for IAC claims and to clarify the sufficiency of the record.
Court of Appeals’ three prejudice-based determinations were modified: the record was insufficient to resolve those claims, but the overall conviction and evidence sufficiency were affirmed as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudice must be alleged on direct appeal for IAC claims	Filholm argues prejudice is not required on direct appeal	State argues prejudice is required on direct appeal	Prejudice not required on direct appeal; record sufficiency governs
Whether the record sufficiently addressed IAC claims on direct appeal	Record was sufficient to review some IAC claims	Record insufficient to resolve several IAC claims	Record insufficient to review certain IAC claims; modified accordingly
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction	State’s evidence supports conviction	Defense argues reasonable doubt exists	Sufficient evidence; rational jury could convict beyond reasonable doubt
Whether appellant must plead deficient performance with specificity on direct appeal	Not required to plead with specificity	Specific allegations required to review IAC claims	On direct appeal, specific allegations of deficient performance are required
Whether IAC claims needing evidentiary hearings can be resolved on direct appeal	Some IAC claims can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing	Some claims require evidentiary hearing and cannot be decided on direct appeal	Claims that require evidentiary hearings may not be resolved on direct appeal; record may be insufficient to review them

State v. Derr, 19 Neb. App. 326, 809 N.W.2d 520 (2011) (disapproved to extent it required prejudice on direct appeal; hold requires specific allegations of deficient performance)
State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174, 826 N.W.2d 255 (2013) (cited for standards on prejudice and IAC claims)
State v. Warrack, 21 Neb. App. 604, 842 N.W.2d 167 (2014) (cited on direct-appeal prejudice argument (distinguished))
State v. Kays, 21 Neb. App. 376, 838 N.W.2d 366 (2013) (cited on prejudice requirement (disapproved in part))
State v. Watt, 285 Neb. 647, 832 N.W.2d 459 (2013) (IAC review standards and record sufficiency on direct appeal)
State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50, 807 N.W.2d 520 (2012) (example of when record supports or rebuts IAC merits)