State v. Buttercase
A-15-987
| Neb. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Defendant Joseph J. Buttercase was convicted in 2012 of first-degree sexual assault and related offenses and received consecutive prison terms; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Buttercase filed a postconviction motion (Feb. 19, 2015) alleging violations of due process and ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel for multiple claimed failures (witnesses, suppression/Franks issues, investigation, objections, expert, venue, and late disclosure of evidence).
- The State moved to deny relief without an evidentiary hearing; the district court treated briefing as on the State’s responsive pleading and later held hearings on recusal and amendment requests.
- Buttercase moved to recuse the postconviction judge, claiming prior courtroom admonishments, a complaint to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and social-media evidence suggesting bias; the court denied recusal.
- Buttercase sought leave to amend his postconviction motion to add a claim that the State failed to disclose a sexual video; the court denied amendment as untimely or not relating back and as insufficiently pleaded.
- The district court denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing; the appellate court affirmed on procedural and merits grounds (claims were procedurally barred, insufficiently pleaded, refuted by the record, or speculatively prejudicial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to recuse judge | Judge’s prior admonishment, a complaint to the JQC, and alleged Facebook messages show bias; recusal needed for impartial postconviction proceedings | Admonishment was proper courtroom administration; complaint dismissal and belated Facebook claims do not require recusal | Denied — no objective basis to question impartiality; admonition was proper and Facebook evidence not raised below |
| Motion to amend postconviction motion | New claim that State withheld a sex video prejudiced due process and counsel; amendment should relate back | Amendment filed after §29-3001 limitations; claim does not relate back and is insufficiently pleaded | Denied — amendment untimely/does not adequately relate back and video would not change outcome or was cumulative |
| Request for evidentiary hearing on postconviction claims | Alleged facts, if developed, would show constitutional violations and ineffective assistance warranting a hearing | Claims were procedurally barred, conclusory, insufficiently specific, or refuted by record; no entitlement to hearing | Denied — appellate review de novo: allegations fail Strickland pleading requirements or are barred by prior appeal/severance |
| Specific ineffective-assistance allegations (witnesses, suppression/Franks, evidence disclosure, objections, expert, venue) | Counsel failed in enumerated ways causing prejudice | Many claims were either previously litigated on direct appeal, tied to severed/dismissed counts, conclusory (no specifics), or refuted by record | Denied — (a) Aden/new-witness claim is procedurally barred; (b) suppression/Franks claims tied to severed counts; (c) late-disclosure/photograph/expert claims too speculative or not sufficiently pled; (d) no proof of prejudicial pretrial publicity |
Key Cases Cited
- Huber v. Rohrig, 280 Neb. 868 (2010) (recusal test: objective standard whether a reasonable person would question judge’s impartiality)
- Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363 (Neb. 2013) (trial judge’s authority over courtroom conduct and evidence presentation)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (ordinary judicial rulings and courtroom management do not constitute bias requiring recusal)
- Joubert v. State, 235 Neb. 230 (1990) (presiding at trial does not automatically disqualify judge from later postconviction proceedings)
- Craycraft v. United States, 167 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 1999) (relation-back analysis for untimely amended claims under Rule 15(c))
- Mata v. State, 280 Neb. 849 (2010) (previously endorsed liberal amendment in postconviction context but later disfavored)
- Robertson v. State, 294 Neb. 29 (2016) (postconviction proceedings are narrowly confined and civil pleading liberalities do not apply)
- Edwards v. State, 294 Neb. 1 (2016) (review of denial of leave to amend a postconviction motion is for abuse of discretion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Galindo v. State, 278 Neb. 599 (2009) (pretrial publicity does not alone warrant presumptive due-process violation)