Tomes' claim, as pertaining to trial counsel's failure to provide and discuss discovery, does not identify any discovery that was in counsel's possession or any discovery which would have been exculpatory. Compare State v. Woodruff, 30 Neb.App. 193, 965 N.W.2d 836 (2021) (defendant identified certain exculpatory evidence which counsel did not discuss or review with him). Furthermore, our review of the record reveals that Tomes could not prove prejudice because the evidence provided as a basis for his plea was overwhelmingly in support of his conviction and he received a favorable plea deal.
Amaro-Sanchez' assigned error is broadly stated and does not identify what discovery or other information that he allegedly failed to receive. As our court noted in State v. Woodruff, 30 Neb.App. 193, 205, 965 N.W.2d 836, 846-47 (2021): It has been held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that is insufficiently stated is no different than a claim not stated at all.
In State v. Woodruff, 30 Neb.App. 193, 207, 965 N.W.2d 836, 848 (2021), the defendant assigned that his trial counsel was ineffective when she "failed to share and review discovery" with him.
Because it is not clear what materials the discovery consisted of, what communications Khalaf exchanged with his trial counsel, what discovery materials were or were not provided to Khalaf, and whether reviewing the discovery materials, including the police video, would have assisted Khalaf in deciding how to approach his case, we determine that the record on direct appeal is insufficient to address this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Woodruff, 30 Neb.App. 193, 965 N.W.2d 836 (2021).