State v. Allen

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Kevin Allen’s motion for postconviction relief. The court held that claims concerning alleged trial errors were procedurally barred because they were or could have been raised on direct appeal, and that Allen’s ineffective-assistance claims failed to allege prejudice or deficient performance. The court also concluded that proposed polygraph evidence was inadmissible and that the motion did not establish entitlement to a hearing based on newly discovered evidence.

Holdings

1. A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure review of issues that were or could have been litigated on direct appeal, and plain error cannot be asserted in a postconviction proceeding to raise claims of trial-court error.
2. Allen was not entitled to postconviction relief or an evidentiary hearing because he failed to allege facts demonstrating deficient performance and a reasonable probability of prejudice.
3. The court declined to address Allen's ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel assignment because he failed to specifically argue it in his appellate brief.
4. An evidentiary hearing is not required when a postconviction motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts.
5. The proper course is to overrule the motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, rather than characterize the disposition as dismissal for failure to state a civil pleading claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Allen could use postconviction proceedings to relitigate alleged trial errors that were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal.
2. Whether Allen alleged sufficient facts to warrant postconviction relief or an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
3. Whether Allen sufficiently argued or established ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
4. Whether generalized allegations concerning possible forensic-evidence problems and newly discovered evidence required an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed