State v. Stelly, 308 Neb. 636

Background

Malik M. Stelly was convicted of first-degree murder and related weapons offenses after an LG cell phone was found near the victim and cell‑phone data tied Stelly to the scene.
Police extracted data from the LG phone after obtaining a warrant; trial testimony placed a full Cellebrite extraction at ~6:49–6:58 p.m. on January 11, 2017; other testimony described an earlier, limited review to identify the owner the morning of January 11.
Social‑media image metadata (exhibits) showed uploads at 1:50 and 2:06 UTC on January 11, which Stelly contends establish the extraction occurred before the shooting (and thus that police had the phone earlier and conducted an unlawful search).
Stelly alleged the prosecution concealed a Cellebrite extraction disc (Brady claim) that would prove precrime extraction; he also alleged prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to obtain or raise the disc/evidence.
On direct appeal the court upheld the warrant/affidavit (treating a scrivener’s error as cured) and rejected some ineffective‑assistance claims; the district court denied Stelly’s postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing; Stelly appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stelly)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on postconviction claims (Brady/prosecutorial misconduct/illegal search)	Stelly argued the record shows data extraction occurred before the crime and that a suppressed Cellebrite disc would prove it, warranting a hearing	State argued claims were procedurally barred, conclusory, and refuted by the record; no newly discovered evidence was alleged	Denied. Claims were procedurally barred, conclusory without supporting facts, or affirmatively refuted by the record, so no hearing was required
Whether the State committed a Brady violation by concealing the Cellebrite extraction disc	Disc allegedly would show precrime extraction and thus favorable, suppressed evidence that impeaches nexus between phone and crime	State: no showing disc existed or was suppressed; Stelly never raised a Brady claim below; evidence cited did not support inference of precrime extraction	Rejected. Brady claim not raised in postconviction motion and record does not support inference of suppressed exculpatory disc
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or obtain the disc and challenge cell‑phone evidence	Counsel should have discovered the disc and exposed precrime extraction, undermining admissibility of phone evidence	State: allegations rely on evidence available at trial/direct appeal; different counsel on appeal; claim not raised earlier and is procedurally barred	Procedurally barred. Claim was based on matters apparent from the record, not raised on direct appeal, and thus barred
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the alleged Brady/chain‑of‑custody issue	Appellate counsel should have pursued the undisclosed disc/Brady claim discovered by reviewing the trial record	State: postconviction motion did not plead a Brady claim or identify the disc; record refutes any reasonable inference of precrime extraction	Rejected. Appellate‑counsel claim not pleaded and the record affirmatively refutes deficiency or prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose favorable, material evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33 (2019) (direct appeal addressing suppression and some ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Parnell, 305 Neb. 932 (2020) (procedural‑bar principles for postconviction review)
State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 (2015) (postconviction claims that are conclusory or fail to identify evidence may be dismissed)
State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 (2018) (evidentiary hearing not required where motion alleges only conclusions without supporting facts)