State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467

Christopher M. Payne pled no contest to first-degree sexual assault on a child pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to 40–50 years; he did not file a direct appeal.
Payne filed a postconviction motion alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to preserve speedy trial rights, failure to investigate or hire experts, failure to challenge venue/corpus delicti, advising him to plead despite false testimony).
The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding Payne’s claims were procedurally barred.
Payne appealed the denial and challenged the court’s refusal to grant a hearing and its plain-error analysis.
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether Payne’s ineffective-assistance claims (particularly counsel advising the no-contest plea) were procedurally barred given the absence of a direct appeal and whether trial counsel remained his attorney during the direct-appeal period.
The court found trial counsel had not been allowed to withdraw and therefore remained Payne’s counsel during the direct-appeal window, so the claims were not procedurally barred; it reversed and remanded with directions for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Payne was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claims	Payne: his motion alleged facts that, if true, would show constitutional violations (ineffective assistance) and thus required a hearing	State: claims were procedurally barred and the record showed no entitlement to relief, so no hearing required	Court: reversed — claims not procedurally barred; hearing required where allegations, if proved, could show constitutional violations
Whether ineffective-assistance claims are procedurally barred because Payne did not file a direct appeal	Payne: postconviction is his first realistic opportunity to raise counsel ineffectiveness because trial counsel remained his counsel during the appeal period	State: failure to file direct appeal bars issues that could have been raised on direct appeal	Court: held not barred because trial counsel had not withdrawn and thus could not be expected to raise his own ineffectiveness on appeal
Whether a plea of no contest waived Payne’s collateral claims	State: plea waives most defenses; postconviction relief is limited to voluntariness of plea and ineffective assistance claims	Payne: challenges the voluntariness/effectiveness aspect (counsel advising plea despite false testimony)	Court: acknowledged plea waiver rule but allowed the narrow preserved claim (ineffective assistance re: plea advice) to proceed

State v. Watkins, 284 Neb. 742, 825 N.W.2d 403 (Neb. 2012) (standard for when an evidentiary hearing is required on postconviction motions)
State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7, 751 N.W.2d 619 (Neb. 2008) (postconviction is first opportunity to raise trial counsel ineffectiveness when same counsel represented at trial and on appeal)
State v. Barnes, 272 Neb. 749, 724 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 2006) (treatment of failure to file a direct appeal and related ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488, 713 N.W.2d 412 (Neb. 2006) (discussing postconviction standards)
State v. Curtright, 262 Neb. 975, 637 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 2002) (authority on counsel withdrawal and attorney-client relationship continuity)