Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Derrick U. Stricklin’s motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that Stricklin failed to establish prejudice from trial counsel’s failure to present an alibi defense and failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting an ineffective-assistance claim based on alleged alternative suspects. The court also upheld the denial of his request to depose additional cell phone record experts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present Stricklin's proposed alibi defense.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence concerning alternative suspects.
- Whether the district court erred by denying Stricklin leave to depose two cell-phone-record experts during the remanded postconviction proceedings.
Holdings
- The claim fails because, even assuming counsel's failure to present the alibi constituted deficient performance, Stricklin did not establish a reasonable probability that presenting the alibi would have changed the trial's outcome.
- The claim fails because Stricklin offered only speculation and hearsay and did not specifically show what an investigation would have discovered, what exculpatory evidence would have resulted, or how the investigation would have changed the outcome.
- The district court did not err in denying the requested depositions because the request was outside the scope of the appellate mandate, and, insofar as the proposed testimony related to the alibi claim, its denial was not an abuse of discretion.
Key quotations
““The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not just conceivable.”” (490)
“The record does not support Stricklin’s claim that he was at another place for such a length of time that it was impossible for him to have committed the murders.” (493)
Factual background
In 2013, Stricklin and codefendant Terrell E. Newman were convicted of murdering Carlos Morales and Bernardo Noriega during a drug transaction at an Omaha automobile body shop. The State relied substantially on an eyewitness identification and phone records showing communications between Stricklin and Newman before and after the approximate time of the shootings. In postconviction proceedings, Stricklin claimed counsel should have presented an alibi based on his activities with his stepson and family members and should have investigated Marcus Jefferson and James Moore as alternative suspects. The district court found gaps in the proposed alibi during the critical period and found no nonhearsay evidence supporting the alternative-suspect theory.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Stricklin in 2013 of two counts of first degree murder and related weapons, attempted manslaughter, and possession offenses, and the district court imposed consecutive sentences including life imprisonment. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. After the district court initially denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded for a hearing on claims that counsel failed to present an alibi and investigate other suspects. Following the hearing, the district court denied relief and denied the requested expert depositions; the Supreme Court affirmed.