State v. Conn, 914 N.W.2d 440

In November 2011 Coty J. Conn pled no contest to attempted assault on an officer and admitted habitual criminal status; on January 27, 2012 he was sentenced to 20–35 years and did not file a direct appeal.
Conn, represented by counsel at plea and sentencing, filed a motion for postconviction relief on May 28, 2013, alleging ineffective assistance for failing to file a direct appeal as requested.
The State moved to dismiss under the 1-year limitations period in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4); the district court held a hearing and dismissed Conn’s motion as time barred.
Conn appealed, arguing the postconviction motion was timely because (a) the limitations period should run from the 90-day certiorari period (May 28, 2012) and (b) alternatively under § 29-3001(4)(b) he discovered the factual predicate later; he also argued equitable tolling.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo the statutory timeliness question and affirmed dismissal, holding the 1-year clock began 30 days after sentencing and rejecting Conn’s equitable tolling and preservation arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the § 29-3001(4) 1-year period begin?	Conn: period begins after expiration of 90-day certiorari window (May 28, 2012), so his May 28, 2013 filing is timely.	State: period begins when time for filing a direct appeal expires (30 days after judgment).	Held: begins 30 days after sentencing per § 25-1912 and plain language of § 29-3001(4)(a); Conn’s motion filed after the year.
Timeliness under § 29-3001(4)(b) (discovery of factual predicate)	Conn (on appeal): he only discovered counsel failed to file appeal later, so (b) makes filing timely.	State: Conn failed to raise (b) below; not preserved.	Held: Not preserved for appeal because Conn did not raise (b) in district court.
Equitable tolling of the limitations period	Conn: counsel’s failure to file appeal after being asked and his reliance justify equitable tolling.	State: no grounds shown; statute and precedent limit tolling.	Held: Even assuming allegations true, facts do not support equitable tolling and § 29-3001(4)(c) covers state-created impediments.
Effect of appointment of postconviction counsel	Conn: appointment implies the court found motion timely.	State: appointment prior to State’s timeliness defense; no link between appointment and timeliness.	Held: Appointment does not imply timeliness; argument meritless.

State v. Reeves, 234 Neb. 711 (discussing finality for retroactivity analysis)
State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245 (discussion of finality in collateral-review/retroactivity context)
State v. Huggins, 291 Neb. 443 (interpreting § 29-3001(4) finality and rejecting inclusion of certiorari period for limitations start)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. Supreme Court equitable tolling standard for habeas)