State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70

Background

In 1999 Jay D. Amaya pled no contest to first‑degree murder, use of a knife in commission of a felony, and sexual assault; he did not file a direct appeal.
Amaya filed a postconviction motion in 2006 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; after an evidentiary hearing the district court denied relief and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
On September 2, 2016 Amaya filed a successive verified postconviction motion claiming additional ineffective assistance (trial counsel failed to disclose evidence and misadvised about exposure to the death penalty) and included a motion for a new trial.
The district court dismissed the successive motion on September 7, 2016 as time barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑3001(4), as raising claims litigated or available earlier, and as frivolous; the court dismissed without requesting a State response or holding an evidentiary hearing.
Amaya filed a motion to amend (denied as filed after dismissal) and a motion to alter or amend (found untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑1329); he appealed, arguing the court erred by dismissing without notice/hearing, denying amendment and relief, and denying appointment of counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court may sua sponte dismiss a postconviction motion as time barred	Amaya argued court should not dismiss without notice/hearing and State response	State (and court) asserted preliminary review statute authorizes court to dismiss if records show no relief	Court: trial court may, but is not required to, consider timeliness sua sponte during preliminary review and dismiss if motion and records show time bar
Whether § 29‑3001(4) one‑year limitation applies retroactively (ex post facto)	Amaya argued applying 2011 statute to his 1999 conviction is ex post facto punishment	State argued statute is procedural statute of limitation, not ex post facto	Court: statute of limitations does not constitute ex post facto punishment; § 29‑3001(4) applies
Whether alleged ineffective assistance of prior postconviction counsel tolls under § 29‑3001(4)(c)	Amaya claimed prior postconviction counsel’s failings were a state‑created impediment preventing timely filing	State argued ineffective postconviction counsel is not state action creating a constitutional impediment and does not toll limitations	Court: tolling fails as matter of law — no state‑created impediment, no constitutional violation (no right to effective counsel in postconviction), and no showing of prevention from filing earlier
Whether district court abused discretion denying amendment or motion to alter judgment	Amaya relied on civil pleading rules and Mata to justify amendment and timely relief	State argued postconviction rules differ from civil rules; amendment after dismissal is not contemplated; motion to alter was untimely under § 25‑1329	Court: no abuse of discretion — postconviction practice does not permit amendment after court finds no hearing necessary; motion to alter was untimely and properly denied

Key Cases Cited

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (federal courts may sua sponte consider timeliness of habeas petitions)
State v. Crawford, 291 Neb. 362 (Neb. 2015) (statute of limitations for postconviction relief is an affirmative defense; not jurisdictional)
State v. Goynes, 293 Neb. 288 (Neb. 2016) (application of § 29‑3001(4) to successive motions)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 (Neb. 2016) (postconviction statutes do not contemplate amending motion after court finds no evidentiary hearing necessary)
State v. Hessler, 288 Neb. 670 (Neb. 2014) (successive postconviction relief permitted only for grounds not existing when first motion filed)
State v. Nolan, 292 Neb. 118 (Neb. 2015) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of postconviction pleadings)
State v. Poindexter, 277 Neb. 936 (Neb. 2009) (appellate review of factual findings in postconviction proceedings)