State v. Kellogg

321 Neb. 502 (2026) · Nebraska Supreme Court · May 29, 2026 · No. S-25-310

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Keiandre T. Kellogg’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that Kellogg’s allegations did not establish a reasonable probability that he was incompetent when he pleaded guilty or that a competency hearing would have resulted in a finding of incompetence. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint postconviction counsel.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Freudenberg, J.; Funke, C.J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Papik, J.; Hall, District Judge; Smith, District Judge
Jurisdiction
Nebraska Supreme Court
Decision date
May 29, 2026
Docket number
S-25-310
Procedural posture
Kellogg appealed the Douglas County District Court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and its failure to appoint postconviction counsel.
Standard of review
The sufficiency of postconviction allegations and whether the record affirmatively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief are reviewed de novo. Ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions of law and fact: factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while counsel-performance and prejudice determinations are reviewed independently. The denial of appointed counsel in a postconviction proceeding is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Keiandre T. Kellogg v. State of Nebraska
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

post-conviction reliefineffective assistanceright to counselcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal postconviction reliefineffective assistance of counselcriminal procedurecriminal competency

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred by denying postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing on Kellogg's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a competency hearing or defense.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint counsel for the postconviction proceedings.

Holdings

  1. No. A postconviction defendant alleging ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to seek a competency hearing must allege facts showing a reasonable probability that the defendant was actually incompetent and that the trial court would have found the defendant incompetent had a hearing been held. Kellogg's generalized allegations concerning mental-health conditions and family history, together with the plea colloquy, did not satisfy that requirement.
  2. No. Appointment of counsel under the Nebraska Postconviction Act is discretionary, and failure to appoint counsel is not an abuse of discretion when the postconviction claims are procedurally barred or meritless and therefore present no justiciable issue of law or fact.

Key quotations

In order to demonstrate prejudice from counsel’s failure to seek a competency hearing, the defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that he or she was, in fact, incompetent and that the trial court would have found the defendant incompetent had a competency hearing been conducted. (at 511-512)
None of Kellogg’s allegations show that the conditions from which he may or may not have suffered prevented him from being competent to plead guilty. (at 513)

Factual background

Kellogg was charged after approaching a man at an Omaha service station, drawing a pistol, and shooting and killing him. He later pleaded guilty under an agreement reducing the first degree murder charge to second degree murder. Although sentencing materials described extensive family and personal mental-health concerns, Kellogg's plea-colloquy responses indicated that he understood the proceedings, his rights, the charges, and the consequences of his pleas. His postconviction motion alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of or pursue a competency defense.

Procedural history

Kellogg pleaded guilty to second degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person in 2019. His sentences were summarily affirmed on direct appeal in 2020. In March 2025, the district court denied his timely postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that his allegations did not show ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to pursue a competency defense and that the record showed he was entitled to no relief. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…