State v. Harrison, 293 Neb. 1000

In 1985, David K. Harrison was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Harrison filed a first postconviction motion in 1999 which was denied after an evidentiary hearing; that denial was affirmed on appeal.
In April 2015, Harrison filed a second postconviction motion (styled also to seek a writ of error coram nobis) alleging: judicial misconduct at trial; absence of a commitment order; and erroneous jury instructions under State v. Smith and State v. Trice.
The district court denied coram nobis relief and overruled the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the motion successive and time‑barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑3001(4).
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Harrison’s motion was timely (identifying applicable triggering events for the 1‑year filing period) and whether coram nobis was available for the alleged errors.

Issue	Harrison's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Timeliness of second postconviction motion	The claims (judicial misconduct, lack of commitment order, Smith/Trice instructional rule) justify relief and are timely	The motion is successive and untimely under § 29‑3001(4); no triggering event applies	Motion was time barred; 1‑year period ran from Aug 27, 2011 and expired before filing
Whether Smith/Trice created a new constitutional claim triggering the 1‑year period	Smith announced a new criminal rule applicable to his case; Trice applied Smith on direct review so the claims are newly recognized	Smith announced a statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule; thus § 29‑3001(4)(d) does not apply	Smith did not announce a new constitutional claim; Trice does not make § 29‑3001(4)(d) applicable
Applicability of coram nobis	Requested coram nobis to correct alleged errors related to instructions, judicial conduct, and commitment order	Coram nobis is limited to previously unknown factual matters and cannot correct errors of law	Coram nobis denied—Harrison asserted only errors of law, not the factual errors coram nobis can remedy
Need for an evidentiary hearing on postconviction motion	Allegations merit factual development and thus an evidentiary hearing	Motion alleges only legal conclusions or matters shown by the record; no hearing required	No evidentiary hearing required because motion was untimely and alleged legal errors shown by the record

State v. Harrison, 221 Neb. 521, 378 N.W.2d 199 (1985) (affirming Harrison's conviction on direct appeal)
State v. Harrison, 264 Neb. 727, 651 N.W.2d 571 (2002) (postconviction decision in Harrison's earlier collateral challenge)
State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720, 806 N.W.2d 383 (2011) (interpreting manslaughter statute and holding a particular step instruction was incorrect)
State v. Trice, 286 Neb. 183, 835 N.W.2d 667 (2013) (applied Smith on direct review; clarified Smith did not announce a new constitutional rule)
State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18, 858 N.W.2d 577 (2015) (discussed in relation to Smith's statutory interpretation)
State v. Diaz, 283 Neb. 414, 808 N.W.2d 891 (2012) (postconviction/IATC context cited for limits on coram nobis)
State v. Harris, 292 Neb. 186, 871 N.W.2d 762 (2015) (explaining coram nobis purpose and scope)
State v. Hessler, 288 Neb. 670, 850 N.W.2d 777 (2014) (misconduct at trial not remedied by coram nobis)
State v. Goynes, (see ante) Neb. (876 N.W.2d 912) (2016) (discussed timing of § 29‑3001(4) trigger application)