State v. Hessler, 940 N.W.2d 836

Jeffrey Hessler was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and firearm use, and was sentenced to death; he exhausted direct appeal and prior postconviction remedies.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida in January 2016, criticizing Florida’s judge-centric capital-sentencing factfinding.
Hessler filed a successive postconviction motion in October 2016 relying on Hurst, arguing Nebraska’s statutes violate the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments because judges — not a jury — make sentencing factfindings and Nebraska does not require a unanimous jury recommendation for death.
Nebraska’s Postconviction Act imposes a one-year limitations period (§ 29-3001(4)) that may be triggered when a constitutional claim is initially recognized by the U.S. or Nebraska Supreme Court if that right is made retroactive on collateral review.
In State v. Lotter, this court held Hurst did not announce a new rule (it applied Ring v. Arizona) and therefore could not trigger the one-year limitations provision; the district court applied Lotter to dismiss Hessler’s motion as time barred without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, noting that McKinney v. Arizona further undermines Hessler’s substantive premise by confirming juries are not required to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Issue	Hessler's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Hessler's Hurst-based postconviction claims are timely under § 29-3001(4)(d)	Hurst is a new, controlling decision that triggers the 1-year filing period, so his motion (filed within a year of Hurst) is timely	Hurst did not announce a new rule; it applied Ring, so it cannot be a triggering event and the motion is time barred	Affirmed: Hurst does not announce a new rule for § 29-3001(4)(d) purposes; Hessler's motion is time barred

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (held jury must find the aggravating circumstance rendering defendant death-eligible)
Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016) (invalidated Florida’s judge-centric capital sentencing scheme; applied Ring)
State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 (2018) (Nebraska Supreme Court held Hurst did not announce a new rule and cannot trigger the postconviction one-year limit)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (procedural rule in Ring is not retroactive on collateral review)
McKinney v. Arizona, 140 S. Ct. 702 (2020) (clarified that a jury is not constitutionally required to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances or make the ultimate sentencing decision)