State v. Payne
298 Neb. 373
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2005, Christopher M. Payne pleaded 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 appointed.
- Payne filed a postconviction motion alleging trial counsel was ineffective in five respects, and that but for counsel’s ineffectiveness he would have insisted on trial rather than pleading no contest.
- The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing; Payne appealed.
- On first appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held Payne’s ineffective-assistance claims were not procedurally barred (because trial counsel remained his counsel during the appeal period) and that only claims challenging whether the plea resulted from ineffective assistance survived; the Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on those claims.
- On remand, the district court construed the mandate as limiting the evidentiary hearing to the single issue of whether counsel failed to file a direct appeal (a claim Payne had not pled) and scheduled a hearing solely on that point.
- The Supreme Court held the district court exceeded the mandate by limiting the hearing to the direct-appeal issue, vacated the district court’s order as beyond its jurisdiction, and remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether Payne’s no contest plea resulted from trial counsel’s ineffective assistance (including the five alleged deficiencies).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s order limiting the remand hearing to counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal conformed to the appellate mandate | Payne: remand required evidentiary hearing on whether his no-contest plea resulted from counsel’s ineffective assistance (the five alleged failures) | State/district court: opinion could be read to require hearing only on failure to file a direct appeal | Court: District court misread the mandate; limiting the hearing to the direct-appeal issue exceeded the remand and was void; vacated the order and remanded for hearing on plea-related ineffective-assistance claims |
| Whether the order limiting the hearing is a final, appealable order | Payne: order denied hearings on other claims and is final as to those claims | State: (implicitly) scope-of-remand determination is subject to district court’s interpretation | Court: An order granting a hearing on some issues but denying others is final as to the denied claims; appeal is proper |
| Whether appellate mandates bind the trial court and bar modification | Payne: mandate and opinion govern scope of remand and must be followed | District court: interpreted mandate differently and altered scope | Court: Lower courts have an unqualified duty to follow appellate mandates; may not add or subtract terms; deviations are void |
| Whether failure to file a direct appeal was alleged or part of authorized remand issues | Payne: he did not allege counsel failed to file a direct appeal; claim not before district court | District court: treated failure to file appeal as the threshold incompetence issue | Court: Failure-to-appeal claim was not pled and was not the remanded issue; district court improperly added it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467 (2014) (remanded for evidentiary hearing on whether plea resulted from ineffective assistance)
- Klingelhoefer v. Monif, 286 Neb. 675 (2013) (lower court must follow appellate mandate)
- Pursley v. Pursley, 261 Neb. 478 (2001) (opinion is part of the mandate and must be examined with it)
- State v. Shelly, 279 Neb. 728 (2010) (orders exceeding scope of remand are entered without jurisdiction and are void)
- State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7 (2008) ( plea-based convictions preserve only claims that plea was involuntary or resulted from ineffective assistance)