State v. Crawford, 291 Neb. 362

Crawford pled guilty in 2011 to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 10 to 15 years as a habitual criminal.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Crawford’s conviction and sentence; there was no direct review to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
In March 2013 Crawford filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief raising ineffective-assistance claims, including appellate counsel’s handling of withdrawal issues and inclusion of substitute counsel, and a drug-court eligibility misunderstanding.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the postconviction claims on the merits, finding no prejudice from appellate counsel’s withdrawal and noting Crawford knew drug-court eligibility was not part of the plea and that the plea was favorable.
The State argued the motion was time-barred under § 29-3001(4), but the district court did not address timeliness; the Nebraska Supreme Court held the one-year period is not jurisdictional and waived by the State for failing to raise it in the district court.
The court ultimately affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, rejecting both the timeliness defense and the merits of Crawford’s claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 29-3001(4) a jurisdictional requirement?	Crawford	State	Not jurisdictional; time bar is waived if not raised by the State
Did Crawford receive ineffective assistance of appellate counsel?	Crawford	State	No reversible prejudice; appellate withdrawal and plea arguments rejected
Did the district court err in denying relief based on the plain-error claim?	Crawford	State	No plain error found; claims meritless

In re Estate of Hockemeier, 280 Neb. 420 (2010) (time limitation as a statute of limitations, not jurisdictional)
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (1995) (time bar is not jurisdictional; not required to be raised sua sponte)
State v. Ryan, 287 Neb. 938 (2014) (jurisdictional concept narrowed; postconviction claims dismissed for state-law grounds, not lack of jurisdiction)
Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974) (right to counsel limited to first appeal; no right to discretionary further review)
State v. Mata, 273 Neb. 474 (2007) (right to counsel beyond direct appeal not guaranteed in Nebraska)
State v. Dragon, 287 Neb. 519 (2014) (postconviction standards; hearing when factual allegations show constitutional infringement)
State v. Alfredson, 287 Neb. 477 (2014) (jurisdictional questions treated as law; independent review on appeal)
In re Estate of Hockemeier, 280 Neb. 420 (2010) (distinguishes jurisdictional vs. limitations timing; §29-3001(4) not jurisdictional)
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2012) (McDonough; limitations defenses resemble other threshold barriers)
State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77 (2013) (timeliness discussed in postconviction context)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (counsel rights on direct appeal immunized from later claims)