State v. Hill, 968 N.W.2d 96

Teon D. Hill was convicted (including first-degree murder) and sentenced; the district court accepted the jury verdict on February 24, 2016.
Hill appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed and its mandate issued February 6, 2018 (start of the 1-year postconviction filing period under § 29-3001(4)).
Hill filed a pro se motion for new trial (newly discovered evidence/actual innocence) on January 16, 2019; the district court denied it May 14, 2020, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed with mandate issued March 12, 2021.
Hill filed a verified motion for postconviction relief through counsel on April 1, 2021—over three years after the direct-appeal mandate and outside the 1-year statutory window.
The district court dismissed the postconviction motion as untimely under § 29-3001(4); Hill appealed, arguing statutory tolling during the pendency of his new-trial motion and, alternatively, equitable tolling.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statutory period does not toll for separate collateral attacks and equitable tolling did not apply because Hill could have filed timely and offered no excuse for the delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether filing a motion for new trial tolls the 1-year postconviction filing period under § 29-3001(4)	Hill: The 1-year clock paused while his motion for new trial was pending; he filed his postconviction motion within 21 days of the new-trial mandate.	State: § 29-3001(4) contains no tolling for separate collateral proceedings; postconviction Act is the exclusive, limited remedy.	Court: No statutory tolling; allowing it would conflict with the statute’s language and the summary nature of postconviction relief.
Whether equitable tolling excuses Hill’s late filing	Hill: If statutory tolling unavailable, equitable tolling should apply because of the pending new-trial proceedings.	State: Hill offers no justification for failing to file during the available time; equitable tolling requires due diligence and preventing circumstances.	Court: Even if equitable tolling were applicable, Hill showed no diligence and was not prevented from filing during the 1-year period; equitable tolling denied.

State v. Mata, 304 Neb. 326, 934 N.W.2d 475 (standard of review for postconviction denials)
State v. Edwards, 301 Neb. 579, 919 N.W.2d 530 (mandate marks conclusion of direct appeal for § 29-3001(4))
State v. Koch, 304 Neb. 133, 933 N.W.2d 585 (same: appellate mandate fixes finality date)
State v. Lotter, 278 Neb. 466, 771 N.W.2d 551 (postconviction relief is narrowly prescribed)
State v. Smith, 288 Neb. 797, 851 N.W.2d 665 (postconviction Act is primary remedy for collateral constitutional attacks)
State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 391, 914 N.W.2d 440 (discusses equitable tolling and courts/governmental action preventing filing)
Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (states have no constitutional obligation to provide postconviction proceedings)