Opinion ID: 1966978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: right to confront miller

Text: In this section of his motion, Nesbitt simply restates the same argument he made under his Sequestration of Witnesses section, i.e., that his defense counsel was ineffective for stipulating away his right to confront Miller and that the district court also violated his confrontation rights by accepting the stipulation. To the extent this argument assigns error to the district court, it is procedurally barred. State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478, 618 N.W.2d 409 (2000); State v. El-Tabech, 259 Neb. 509, 610 N.W.2d 737 (2000). To the extent this argument restates an ineffective assistance claim against defense counsel, Nesbitt once again fails to properly plead how counsel's performance prejudiced him. Nesbitt, not the State, offered portions of Miller's deposition at trial, and Nesbitt has not identified any of the deposition testimony which was prejudicial to him. Nesbitt states that if Miller had testified in person, he would have provided extremely important exculpatory testimony and that Miller was an extremely vital exculpatory witness, but he again fails to state what that testimony might have been. Without alleging the substance of Miller's anticipated testimony, Nesbitt has again failed to plead a constitutional violation. Consequently, this assignment is without merit.