State v. Payne, 298 Neb. 373

In 2005, Christopher M. 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 engaged.
Payne filed a postconviction motion alleging five theories of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, asserting he would have gone to trial but for counsel's deficiencies.
The district court denied the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing; this Court reversed and remanded 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 requiring a hearing only on whether trial counsel failed to file a direct appeal and ordered the hearing limited to that issue.
Payne appealed the district court's limitation of the hearing; the Supreme Court held the district court exceeded the scope of the mandate, because Payne had not alleged ineffective assistance based on failure to file a direct appeal and the prior opinion remanded for a hearing on whether the plea resulted from counsel's ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly limited the evidentiary hearing on remand to the single issue of counsel's failure to file a direct appeal	Payne: remand entitled him to an evidentiary hearing on whether his no contest plea was the product of ineffective assistance (the five alleged deficiencies)	State/district court: interpreted the mandate as requiring focus on whether counsel failed to file a direct appeal	Court: district court misread the mandate; limiting the hearing to that issue exceeded the scope of remand and its order was void
Whether an order limiting an evidentiary hearing is a final, appealable order	Payne: appealed the limitation as final	State: not argued to preclude appeal	Court: such an order is final as to claims denied without a hearing and is appealable
Proper construction and scope of an appellate mandate	Payne: mandate must be read with the opinion; remand directed hearing on ineffective-assistance-related invalidity of plea	District court: read mandate more narrowly (direct-appeal failure)	Court: mandate must be read with opinion; lower courts must follow mandate and cannot modify it
Jurisdictional effect of a district court acting outside the mandate	Payne: actions outside remand are void	District court: proceeded on its interpretation	Court: orders outside scope of remand are entered without jurisdiction and are void

State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467, 855 N.W.2d 783 (Neb. 2014) (prior opinion remanding for evidentiary hearing on whether plea resulted from ineffective assistance)
State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7, 751 N.W.2d 619 (Neb. 2008) (in plea cases, challenges are limited to voluntariness and ineffective assistance grounds)
Klingelhoefer v. Monif, 286 Neb. 675, 839 N.W.2d 247 (Neb. 2013) (lower courts must follow appellate mandates)
Pursley v. Pursley, 261 Neb. 478, 623 N.W.2d 651 (Neb. 2001) (mandate and opinion together determine scope of remand)
State v. Shelly, 279 Neb. 728, 782 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 2010) (orders beyond scope of remand are entered without jurisdiction and void)