State v. Payne
298 Neb. 373
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2005 Payne pled no contest to first-degree sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 40–50 years; he did not file a direct appeal while trial counsel remained of record.
- Payne filed a verified postconviction motion alleging five ways trial counsel were ineffective, and he asserted he would have insisted on trial but for counsel’s failures.
- The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing; Payne appealed.
- This court (State v. Payne) reversed, holding Payne’s claims were not procedurally barred and remanding for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether Payne’s no-contest plea resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel.
- On remand the district court interpreted the mandate as directing an evidentiary hearing solely on whether counsel failed to file a direct appeal and declined to hear the other ineffective-assistance claims.
- Payne appealed that order; the Supreme Court held the district court exceeded the scope of the appellate mandate and vacated the order, directing a hearing on the plea-related ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality/jurisdiction to appeal district court order limiting the hearing | Payne: order limiting hearing is a final, appealable order as it denies other claims without a hearing | State: (implicit) order within district court discretion, not appealable? | Court: order is final and appealable as it denied an evidentiary hearing on claims |
| Proper construction of the appellate mandate on remand | Payne: mandate required an evidentiary hearing on whether his no-contest plea resulted from trial counsel's ineffective assistance (all five alleged failures) | District court: read mandate as requiring hearing only on failure to file a direct appeal | Court: mandate must be read with the opinion; remand required hearing on plea-related ineffective-assistance claims, not on an unused claim about not filing a direct appeal |
| Whether the district court could add or narrow issues on remand | Payne: district court lacked authority to restrict the hearing beyond the mandate | District court: limited the hearing to a single issue it thought was primary | Court: lower court must follow mandate precisely and may not modify or engraft provisions; the district court exceeded its authority |
| Scope of evidentiary hearing required on remand | Payne: hearing should cover the five alleged failures that he claims caused him to plead no contest | State: agreed at argument the hearing should cover the five claims under the mandate | Court: remand requires an evidentiary hearing on Payne's claims that his no-contest plea resulted from counsel's ineffective assistance (i.e., the claims alleged in his motion) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467, 855 N.W.2d 783 (2014) (prior opinion reversing denial and describing claims preserved when counsel remains of record)
- Klingelhoefer v. Monif, 286 Neb. 675, 839 N.W.2d 247 (2013) (mandate and lower-court duty to follow appellate judgment)
- Pursley v. Pursley, 261 Neb. 478, 623 N.W.2d 651 (2001) (mandate and opinion read together to determine remand scope)
- State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7, 751 N.W.2d 619 (2008) (ineffective assistance claims survive plea only as to voluntariness and counsel effectiveness)
- State v. Shelly, 279 Neb. 728, 782 N.W.2d 12 (2010) (orders outside remand scope are void)