Opinion ID: 4542726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Convictions and Sentences In State v. Parnell, 1 this court affirmed Parnell’s jury trial convictions of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. The district court for Douglas County sentenced Parnell to life imprisonment on the murder conviction, 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment for attempted first degree murder, 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment for each count of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and 3 to 20 years’ imprisonment for possession of a weapon by a prohibited person, to be served consecutively, with credit for time served. The facts which resulted in Parnell’s convictions are set forth in our opinion on direct appeal. On October 30, 2012, at around 8:14 p.m., Eriana Carr and Nakia Johnson were shot in Omaha, Nebraska. Carr was shot twice and died from her injuries. Johnson was shot 11 times and survived. Johnson told investigators that the shots came from “a blue Nissan Altima with a messed up front bumper.” Johnson stated that Parnell and three others threatened her at a party at her friend’s apartment 2 days before the shooting, because “they felt like [she] had brought someone into the house from another side,” or “[a]nother hood.” Detectives discovered that Parnell had been stopped while driving a blue Nissan Altima several months earlier. The 1 State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551, 883 N.W.2d 652 (2016). - 935 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 registered owner of the car was Jasmine Nero, the mother of Parnell’s child. When interviewed by investigators, Parnell denied any knowledge of an Altima and stated that he never drove any of Nero’s vehicles. Parnell spoke to Nero about the Altima in a call from jail. Nero testified that she understood from that call that Parnell wanted her “to get rid of” the car. Nero moved the car to a garage, where investigators later found it. The car’s front bumper was damaged, and it contained a box with Parnell’s thumbprint on it. Pretrial Discovery Prior to trial, Parnell filed a motion to exclude the State’s expert witness William Shute, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a member of the FBI’s “Cellular Analysis Survey Team” who performs “historical cell site analysis” using call detail records provided by cellular carriers. Shute explained that call records show the tower and the sector that a particular cell phone used. Cell towers usually have three sectors. The towers and sectors can be plotted on a map in order to locate a cell phone at a particular time. Shute testified regarding the locations of Parnell’s cell phone around the time of the shooting. Parnell’s call detail records showed that his cell phone connected to tower: (1) 201 at 7:52 p.m., (2) 729 at 8:07 p.m., (3) 201 at 8:11 p.m., (4) 729 at 8:20 p.m., and (5) 201 at 8:20 p.m. Shute plotted the towers and their coverage areas on a map. He testified that the coverage areas for towers 201 and 729 overlap and that the way Parnell’s cell phone switched between towers 201 and 729 showed it was definitely located within the overlapping coverage area at the time of the shooting. The court overruled the motion to exclude, finding that Shute was qualified to testify as an expert and that his methods were reliable. Parnell’s counsel later moved to exclude Shute’s testimony or continue trial based on the discovery of undisclosed evidence. Counsel filed an affidavit stating that he attended a seminar - 936 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 with a presentation by cellular analyst Michael O’Kelly. The State had disclosed in discovery that O’Kelly had performed cell phone mapping services on the case for the Omaha Police Department (OPD). In response to a question from Parnell’s counsel, O’Kelly stated that he performed more serv­ices than disclosed in the report. In supplemental discovery, O’Kelly provided Parnell’s counsel with an affidavit detailing his interactions with the State, and the State disclosed a series of emails between O’Kelly, a detective of the OPD, and a deputy county attorney. In the emails, the detective asked O’Kelly if he had a formal report to present to the county attorney. O’Kelly responded that he could do so in about 10 days. He stated, “Remember, if it’s in writing it’s Discoverable[.] I would recommend the county attorney and I visiting and then letting them decide.” O’Kelly then later wrote to the deputy county attorney, “It was a pleasure visiting Friday[.] I am sending the cell maps and my cell forms, guides and CV[.] When you have a moment after reviewing these, call and I will walk you through each.” In his affidavit, O’Kelly stated that he “reviewed the . . . call detail records and concluded that [Parnell’s cell phone] appeared to travel from the west side of Omaha [where Parnell lived] to the east side, then north and south and then traveling back to the general area on the west side.” O’Kelly said that he “began processing and mapping the individual cell site registrations. The handset transition west to east, north/ south and east to west activities were confirmed.” He then provided the OPD detective with “multiple maps depicting handset movements consistent with cell site registrations that supported physical movement from Omaha’s west side to the east side and possible travel movements north and south on the east side.” O’Kelly also stated that he informed the detective that “it is impossible to identify a specific location stop(s), specific surface roadway travels based upon the existing cellular data.” He stated that “drawing circles and other shapes with defined - 937 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 boundaries is unreliable and at best simple guessing with an agenda. The ‘guessing’ may be based upon experience and training but will still have no foundation and/or credible support that is rooted with existing electronic wireless data.” And he stated that “in order to possibly place the subject [cell phone] in the immediate area of the crime scene . . . it will be necessary to conduct an RF Signal Field Survey.” He explained that his approach to performing such a survey, or drive test, “is time consuming and labor intensive covering days if not weeks.” In his motion to exclude Shute’s testimony or continue trial, Parnell argued that the State failed to disclose O’Kelly’s opinions that a drive test was necessary and that the FBI’s methods were not reliable. In support of his motion, Parnell offered O’Kelly’s affidavit, but not the emails. The State responded that O’Kelly’s opinion was not exculpatory and that O’Kelly placed Parnell’s cell phone in the same area as Shute had, although O’Kelly was not as specific. The court overruled the motion, finding the evidence was not exculpatory and had been provided at an early date. The court permitted Parnell to retain O’Kelly as an expert witness and allowed 12 days to prepare his testimony. Before trial, Parnell renewed his motion to continue the trial, offering the email exchanges with O’Kelly as support. The court overruled the renewed motion. Trial At trial, Johnson testified and described the shooting, the blue Nissan Altima, and the threatening incident 2 days before the shooting. Nero testified regarding the Altima and her relationship with Parnell. Nero testified that she lied to police for Parnell and was charged as an accessory to a felony. Shute testified that towers 201 and 729 form an overlap area and that Parnell was within the overlap area at the time of the shooting. O’Kelly was present throughout the trial but did not testify. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. - 938 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 Motion for New Trial Parnell timely moved for a new trial. He offered a second affidavit from O’Kelly which he contended showed proof of newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered and produced at trial. O’Kelly averred that after his initial work on Parnell’s case, he “informed the government that additional field testing by means of a ‘drive test’ would be required in order to move from speculation to accuracy in the cell tower connection plotting.” A drive test involves making cell phone calls while driving and then obtaining call detail records to see which towers the cell phone used. Shute did not perform such a drive test. O’Kelly began a drive test on the last day of the trial. He averred that the drive test revealed that the crime scene was between towers 201 and 729, which are 1.84 miles apart. The drive test showed that the coverage areas for towers 201 and 729 do not overlap or border each other, as Shute claimed. O’Kelly stated that Parnell had to have left the crime scene in order to connect to tower 729. However, O’Kelly also said that the data showed that Parnell’s cell phone “was in the general vicinity (1 - 2 miles of the crime scene) before, during and after the shooting.” The district court overruled the motion for new trial, finding that O’Kelly’s opinions could have been discovered and produced using reasonable diligence. In addition, the court found that Parnell could have disputed Shute’s testimony by calling O’Kelly as a witness. The court noted that the State had disclosed early in the discovery process that O’Kelly had worked on the case. Lastly, the court concluded that O’Kelly’s opinions were not material, because they would not have affected the outcome of trial. The court found that the drive test results “seem to incriminate [Parnell].” Direct Appeal On direct appeal, Parnell assigned that the district court erred in overruling his motion to exclude Shute’s testimony - 939 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 or continue trial and his motion for a new trial. Parnell also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not call O’Kelly to testify as an expert witness at trial. We found no merit to any of Parnell’s assigned errors. We found that under Brady v. Maryland, 2 the timing of the State’s disclosure of O’Kelly’s opinions did not violate Parnell’s right to due process because the State disclosed the evidence 1 week before trial. We found that the State had no duty to disclose O’Kelly’s oral, unrecorded opinions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (Reissue 2016), because his comments on the need for more data were akin to an internal, informal document and were not results or reports of examinations or scientific tests under § 29-1912(1)(e). We also found Parnell did not make it clear to the district court that O’Kelly required more than 12 days to perform a drive test. We therefore concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Parnell’s motion to exclude Shute’s testimony or continue trial. We rejected Parnell’s argument that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial, finding that, even assuming O’Kelly’s opinions constituted newly discovered evidence, there was not a reasonable probability of a substantially different result. We found that even though O’Kelly criticized the precision of Shute’s opinions, O’Kelly’s opinions still incriminated Parnell, because O’Kelly placed Parnell’s cell phone within 1 to 2 miles of the crime scene before, during, and after the shooting. In addition, the incriminating testimony of Johnson and Nero substantially diminished the importance of the evidence regarding the location of Parnell’s cell phone. In addressing Parnell’s argument that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to call O’Kelly to testify, we first addressed whether Parnell was represented by the same counsel at trial as on appeal and concluded that he was not. We 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). - 940 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 found that the two attorneys who represented Parnell at trial intended to withdraw in the trial court, but because there was no order memorializing their withdrawal, they were certified as appellate counsel to this court, and that they did not then file a motion to withdraw in this court. In response to our show cause order, Parnell’s trial counsel submitted affidavits stating that they had no contact with him after sentencing and did not participate in his appeal. As such, we concluded that we were able to address Parnell’s ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal. We found that had O’Kelly testified, the outcome would not have been different, because he opined that Parnell’s cell phone was near the crime scene when the shooting occurred. We determined that the record conclusively refuted Parnell’s claim that he was prejudiced by the actions of his trial counsel. Postconviction As a self-represented litigant, Parnell filed a motion for postconviction relief which asserted claims of trial court error, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Most of the allegations in Parnell’s motion concern issues previously raised and addressed on direct appeal, especially with regard to O’Kelly’s opinions and the drive test. Of particular note in this appeal, Parnell alleged that his trial counsel and appellate counsel failed to “submit” the email exchanges with O’Kelly to show that O’Kelly’s data is more reliable than Shute’s data. Parnell further alleged that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by “allowing the testimony of Shute at trial knowing that his testimony as an expert was not accurate.” He alleged that, contrary to Shute’s testimony that cell towers 201 and 729 form an overlap area, O’Kelly opined that the cell tower areas do not overlap and that the performance of a drive test was required in order to obtain more accurate data. The district court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that all of Parnell’s claims are procedurally barred because they were known or - 941 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARNELL Cite as 305 Neb. 932 knowable at the time of his direct appeal. Parnell filed a notice of appeal. Parnell’s counsel entered his appearance and filed a brief on his behalf. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Parnell assigns, restated, that the district court erred in determining that his claims for postconviction relief are procedurally barred; in particular, his claim in which he alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise trial counsel’s failure to “introduce certain evidence and correct prosecutorial misconduct.” In the alternative, Parnell assigns that the court erred in determining that any of his claims are procedurally barred because it was unclear as to whether he was represented by the same lawyers during trial and direct appeal.