State v. Stricklin, 916 N.W.2d 413

Stricklin was tried jointly with co-defendant Newman for two murders; Herrera-Gutierrez identified both as shooters and Newman’s cell‑phone records tied Newman to the scene. A jury convicted Stricklin of two counts of first‑degree murder and multiple weapons/offense counts; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Stricklin filed a verified postconviction motion alleging numerous instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and a claim of actual innocence; the district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
At trial and on appeal Stricklin had the same attorney; thus his first opportunity to raise many ineffectiveness claims was in postconviction proceedings.
The district court reviewed and denied most claims on the pleadings or because the record refuted them, but denied an evidentiary hearing on all claims; Stricklin appealed that denial.
This Court reviewed de novo whether the postconviction motion alleged sufficient factual claims to warrant an evidentiary hearing and concluded Stricklin was entitled to a hearing on two specific failures to investigate/present defenses.

Issue	Stricklin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial judge recusal	Counsel was ineffective for not moving to recuse due to perceived judicial favoritism	Allegations were conclusory; record shows admonition to jury and no basis for recusal	Denied — conclusory allegations insufficient; no reasonable probability recusal would succeed
Jury instructions (Nos. 6,11,12,20)	Counsel ineffective for failing to object/request limiting instructions	Issues were litigated or meritless on direct appeal; limiting instruction unnecessary	Denied — claims meritless or previously resolved; no ineffectiveness shown
Alibi defense (failure to file/present notice and witnesses)	Counsel knew of alibi (presence elsewhere, witnesses, cell records) but failed to present it	Strategy choice; record unclear whether counsel’s decision was reasonable	Granted hearing — pleaded facts that, if proven, show deficient performance and prejudice
Failure to investigate other suspects (Jefferson and Moore)	Counsel failed to investigate credible leads identifying alternative suspects	Allegations too vague or cumulative for many witnesses; some leads speculative	Granted hearing limited to investigation regarding Jefferson and Moore; other investigation claims denied

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Newman, 290 Neb. 572 (2015) (addressing instruction errors and related ineffectiveness claims in co‑defendant’s appeals)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (direct appeal affirming convictions and addressing cell‑phone evidence)
State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 (2017) (postconviction relief standards and when evidentiary hearing required)
State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 (2015) (pleading requirements for postconviction motions)
State v. McKinney, 279 Neb. 297 (2010) (same‑counsel rule: first opportunity for ineffectiveness claims in postconviction proceedings)