State v. Henderson

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Tillman T. Henderson’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Henderson alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including failures to call witnesses and seek gunshot residue testing. The court held that his allegations were either insufficiently specific or failed to establish a reasonable probability of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.

Holdings

1. An appellate court reviews de novo whether a postconviction applicant alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate a constitutional violation or whether the record and files affirmatively show that the applicant is entitled to no relief; when relief is denied without a hearing, the question is whether the allegations were sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing.
2. A postconviction application must allege sufficiently specific facts which, if proved, would constitute a constitutional violation; conclusory allegations of fact or law do not require an evidentiary hearing.
3. To obtain postconviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove deficient performance and actual prejudice under Strickland; courts may address either prong first.
4. The district court properly denied an evidentiary hearing on claims concerning omitted witness testimony, gunshot-residue testing, and DNA testing because the allegations were insufficiently specific or failed to show deficient performance and a reasonable probability of prejudice.
5. A postconviction motion cannot be used to obtain review of issues that were or could have been litigated on direct appeal, even when those issues are reframed as ineffective-assistance claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying Henderson's application for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
2. Whether Henderson alleged sufficiently specific facts showing deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.
3. Whether the specific ineffective-assistance claims concerning witnesses, forensic testing, gang-affiliation evidence, text messages, testimony, jury instructions, and appellate arguments warranted an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed