State v. Payne
298 Neb. 373
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Christopher M. Payne pled no contest in 2005 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.
- In 2012 Payne filed a verified postconviction motion alleging five discrete ways trial counsel was ineffective, and that but for that ineffective assistance he would have insisted on trial rather than pleading no contest.
- The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; this Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether Payne’s plea was the product of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- On remand the district court read the mandate as directing a hearing only on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal — a claim Payne never pleaded.
- Payne appealed the district court’s order limiting the hearing; the Supreme Court held the trial court exceeded the scope of the mandate, rendering its order void, and remanded with directions for an evidentiary hearing on the pleaded ineffective-assistance claims concerning the voluntariness of the no-contest plea.
Issues
| Issue | Payne's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of remand — which issues the district court must hear | Remand required an evidentiary hearing on whether his no-contest plea resulted from trial counsel's ineffective assistance (the five pleaded claims) | The remand did not extend to unpleaded claims; State generally agreed Payne was entitled to a hearing on his pleaded claims | The remand required an evidentiary hearing on Payne's pleaded ineffective-assistance claims regarding the plea; the district court erred by limiting the hearing to an unpleaded failure-to-appeal claim. |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear only the failure-to-appeal claim on remand | The district court lacked authority to expand or change the remand scope; Payne never alleged failure to file a direct appeal | The State did not defend the district court's narrow interpretation; it accepted the Court's remand scope to include Payne's pleaded claims | The district court exceeded its authority; any order outside the appellate mandate is void. |
| Finality/appealability of district court order limiting the hearing | The limitation implicitly denied hearings on other pleaded claims and is a final, appealable order | Not disputed | The order was final as to denied claims and therefore appealable. |
| Duty of lower courts to follow appellate mandates | Payne argued the trial court must follow the Supreme Court's opinion and mandate and hold hearings on pleaded claims | State agreed remand entitled Payne to hearings on his pleaded claims | The Court reiterated that lower courts have an unqualified duty to follow appellate mandates; deviation is void. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467, 855 N.W.2d 783 (2014) (prior opinion reversing denial of postconviction relief and remanding for hearing on whether plea was product of ineffective assistance)
- Klingelhoefer v. Monif, 286 Neb. 675, 839 N.W.2d 247 (2013) (lower courts must follow appellate mandates; cannot modify or add provisions)
- State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7, 751 N.W.2d 619 (2008) (plea of guilty or no contest waives all defenses except voluntariness and ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. Shelly, 279 Neb. 728, 782 N.W.2d 12 (2010) (orders exceeding scope of remand are entered without jurisdiction and are void)
- Pursley v. Pursley, 261 Neb. 478, 623 N.W.2d 651 (2001) (mandate and opinion must be read together to determine the scope of the remand)