State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70

Background

In 1999 Jay D. Amaya pled no contest to first-degree murder, use of a knife, and sexual assault; no direct appeal was filed.
Amaya filed a postconviction motion in 2006 raising ineffective-assistance claims; after an evidentiary hearing the district court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
On September 2, 2016 Amaya filed a successive verified postconviction motion raising additional ineffective-assistance claims and a motion for new trial.
The district court dismissed the successive motion on September 7, 2016 as time barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4), as previously adjudicated/available claims, and frivolous; no hearing or state response was requested.
Amaya’s later motions to amend the successive motion, for appointment of counsel, and to alter or amend the judgment were denied; he appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Amaya)	Defendant's Argument (State/District Court)	Held
Whether court may dismiss successive postconviction motion sua sponte as time barred	Court should not dismiss without notice/hearing; State must raise timeliness	Court may dismiss at preliminary review if motion+records show it is time barred	Court may sua sponte consider timeliness; dismissal was proper
Whether § 29-3001(4) application is an ex post facto punishment because crime predated 2011 statute	Applying 1-year limit to pre-2011 convictions is ex post facto	Time limit is procedural/remedial, not punitive	Statute is not ex post facto; application is permissible
Whether alleged ineffective assistance of prior postconviction counsel tolls the limitation as an "impediment created by state action" under § 29-3001(4)(c)	Prior counsel’s failures prevented timely filing; tolling applies	Ineffective assistance in postconviction proceedings is not state-created constitutional impediment; prisoner must show state action + constitutional violation + prevention	Tolling not available: no state-created impediment or constitutional right to effective postconviction counsel; claim fails
Whether district court erred by denying leave to amend and denying motion to alter/amend judgment	Amaya should be allowed to amend and to timely challenge dismissal	Postconviction rules do not permit amendment after court finds motion insufficient; motion to alter was untimely under § 25-1329	Denial of leave to amend and denial of untimely motion to alter/amend were not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Amaya, 276 Neb. 818, 758 N.W.2d 22 (Neb. 2008) (prior direct holdings and postconviction history)
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (federal courts may sua sponte consider timeliness of habeas petitions)
State v. Crawford, 291 Neb. 362, 865 N.W.2d 360 (Neb. 2015) (tolling/statute of limitations in postconviction context and waiver principles)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29, 881 N.W.2d 864 (Neb. 2016) (postconviction motions are not governed by civil pleading rules; no post-dismissal amendment)
State v. Goynes, 293 Neb. 288, 876 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. 2016) (application of § 29-3001(4) to successive motions)
State v. Hessler, 288 Neb. 670, 850 N.W.2d 777 (Neb. 2014) (limitations on successive postconviction relief)