State v. Stelly, 955 N.W.2d 729

On Jan. 11, 2017, shots were detected at ~2:37 a.m.; victim found dead and an LG cell phone was recovered ~10–15 feet from the body.
Police obtained a warrant and extracted data from the LG phone; the affidavit and initial warrant mistakenly referenced a ZTE phone but court found error was scrivener’s error cured by the affidavit.
Evidence at trial included Cellebrite extraction reports, social‑media photographs and timestamps, cell‑site/location records, and DNA linking Stelly to the phone and a hat at the scene.
Trial court denied suppression; Stelly was convicted of first‑degree murder and related charges; direct appeal resolved several issues (see State v. Stelly).
In postconviction proceedings Stelly alleged the prosecution withheld (Brady) a disc containing the full Cellebrite extraction that would show data were extracted before the crime, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to obtain or raise that disc.
The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing as procedurally barred, conclusory, or refuted by the record; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Stelly's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Brady: withheld extraction disc	Disc existed and would show data extracted before the crime, so evidence was suppressed and exculpatory	No disc was alleged in the motion; record does not support inference of pre‑crime extraction	Denied – claim not raised in motion and record does not show suppression; conclusory allegations; procedurally forfeited
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel	Counsel failed to obtain/discover the disc or otherwise investigate timing discrepancies	Claim known from record and could have been raised on direct appeal; new contention is procedurally barred	Denied – procedurally barred because claim was known/apparent from record and not raised on direct appeal
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel	Appellate counsel should have raised trial counsel’s failure re: the disc/Brady disclosure	Appellate‑counsel claim not pled in motion; record refutes any reasonable basis to suspect pre‑crime extraction	Denied – appellate claim not pleaded and record affirmatively refutes deficient performance or prejudice
Prosecutorial misconduct / plain error	Prosecutor presented false testimony about extraction timing and failed to correct it	Allegations are speculative/conclusory and not supported by factual allegations or newly discovered evidence	Denied – allegations are mere conclusions without supporting facts; no hearing required

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory or impeaching evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33 (2019) (direct appeal addressing suppression and some ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Parnell, 305 Neb. 932 (2020) (postconviction procedural‑bar standards)
State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 (2015) (requirements for alleging counsel failure to investigate and identify produced evidence)
State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 (2018) (postconviction motions that allege only conclusions without supporting facts do not require evidentiary hearings)
State v. Starks, 294 Neb. 361 (2016) (articulating Brady components in Nebraska law)