State v. Stricklin, 310 Neb. 478

Background

In 2013 Derrick U. Stricklin and co-defendant Terrell Newman were convicted in Douglas County of two counts of first-degree murder and related weapon offenses; Stricklin received consecutive lengthy prison sentences. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Stricklin filed a postconviction motion alleging (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of alibi and for not presenting an alibi at trial, and (2) counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of other suspects. This court remanded for an evidentiary hearing solely on those two claims.
At the evidentiary hearing Stricklin testified he and his stepson (Hashim) were together for a barbershop visit and family gathering around the time of the killings; counsel admitted he did not file a formal alibi notice and declined to present the alibi for strategic reasons.
Trial evidence included an eyewitness (Herrera-Gutierrez) identifying Stricklin and cell‑phone records showing communications between Stricklin and Newman and a gap in activity on Stricklin’s phone between about 11:13 a.m. and 12:34 p.m., a period that the court found could correspond with the murders.
The district court denied Stricklin’s request to depose two cell‑phone experts as outside the scope of the remand, found the offered alibi evidence left an unfilled time gap and was weak, found no non‑hearsay evidence implicating alternative suspects, and concluded Stricklin failed to show prejudice from counsel’s choices.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even assuming deficient performance for failing to present the alibi, Stricklin failed to prove the requisite prejudice under Strickland and failed to show what investigation of other suspects would have produced.

Issues

Issue	Stricklin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to present alibi	Counsel promised/considered an alibi and then abandoned it without notice; failure foreclosed jury presentation	Counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue a weak alibi; phone records and ID undermined alibi	Even assuming deficiency, no prejudice shown; alibi left a critical time gap and would not likely change outcome
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate other suspects	Counsel failed to investigate Jefferson and "James Moore," hearsay suggested alternate perpetrators	No admissible exculpatory evidence or specific leads; failure to investigate speculative	No prejudice or specific showing of what investigation would have revealed; claim fails
Denial of leave to depose cell‑phone experts	Experts would have interpreted phone data to corroborate alibi	Request exceeded remand scope; records already in evidence; depositions unnecessary	Denial affirmed; any expert proof would not change outcome and was outside remand

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
United States v. Gonzalez‑Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel claim requires demonstration of prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (prejudice inquiry requires reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in outcome)
State v. Beehn, 303 Neb. 172 (2019) (standards for postconviction evidentiary hearings and appellate review)
State v. Moreno, 228 Neb. 210 (1987) (alibi defense evidentiary burden: defendant must show location and duration making commission impossible)