State v. Muratella, 991 N.W.2d 25

In 2019 Muratella pleaded no contest to attempted delivery/possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and was sentenced to 8–12 years.
Plea factual basis: officer observed a man ask for an earbud case, left when officer identified, officer opened the case and found suspected meth, field test positive, preliminary weight ~18 g; lab later confirmed 16.636 g meth.
In 2022 an NSP evidence technician, Anna Idigima, was federally indicted for theft/distribution of drugs; Idigima appeared in the chain of custody for the earbud-case evidence in Muratella’s file.
Muratella moved for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (arguing chain-of-custody/indictment was newly discovered evidence and affected his substantial rights) and moved to withdraw his plea under the common‑law procedure of State v. Gonzalez (arguing plea was not voluntary/knowing). The State did not oppose the motions.
The district court denied both motions (concluding pleas are verdicts of conviction but a plea waives defenses and the chain-of-custody issue did not materially affect substantial rights; it also found Muratella failed to plead/prove the Postconviction Act was unavailable as required by Gonzalez).
Muratella appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of a new trial after a no-contest plea and whether Idigima’s indictment required one	Muratella: plea does not bar moving for new trial; Idigima’s indictment destroyed chain of custody and materially affected substantial rights	State: plea results in a verdict of conviction but a plea waives defenses and the claimed ground is merely newly discovered impeachment evidence	Held: Plea may be a "verdict of conviction," but Muratella failed to show the indictment materially affected his substantial rights; denial affirmed
Withdrawal of plea under common-law Gonzalez procedure	Muratella: plea was not voluntary/knowing in light of later-discovered chain-of-custody issues; constitutional rights implicated	State/district court: Gonzalez relief is available only if the Nebraska Postconviction Act was unavailable; defendant must plead/prove Postconviction Act was unavailable	Held: Muratella did not plead/prove the Postconviction Act was unavailable; Gonzalez relief denied
Ineffective assistance for not pursuing Postconviction Act relief	Muratella: counsel should have sought relief under the Postconviction Act instead of Gonzalez	State: claim of ineffective assistance not properly raised on this post-direct-appeal motion	Held: Court declined to address ineffectiveness on direct appeal from post-direct-appeal motion; no ruling on merits here

State v. Gonzalez, 285 Neb. 940, 830 N.W.2d 504 (Neb. 2013) (recognizing common-law procedure to withdraw plea when Postconviction Act is unavailable and a constitutional right is at issue)
State v. Daly, 227 Neb. 633, 418 N.W.2d 767 (Neb. 1988) (an accepted guilty plea resulting in adjudication is a "verdict of conviction")
State v. Kluge, 198 Neb. 115, 251 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 1977) (motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is generally inappropriate after guilty/no-contest plea)
State v. Osborne, 313 Neb. 726, 986 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 2023) (chain-of-custody admissibility does not require testimony from every person who touched evidence)
State v. Jerke, 302 Neb. 372, 923 N.W.2d 78 (Neb. 2019) (holding that unavailability of the Postconviction Act is a material element that must be pled/proved to invoke Gonzalez)