State v. Payne
298 Neb. 373
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2005 Christopher M. Payne pled no contest to first-degree sexual assault of a child and received 40–50 years; he did not file a direct appeal while trial counsel remained of record.
- Payne filed a postconviction motion alleging five distinct theories of trial-counsel ineffectiveness that, if true, would have caused him to reject the plea and insist on trial.
- 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 plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- On remand the district court construed the mandate to require a hearing solely on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal—a claim Payne never asserted.
- Payne appealed the district court’s limiting order; the Supreme Court held the district court exceeded the scope of the mandate, rendering its order void, and remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance theories that could have produced the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly limited the remand hearing to only the single issue of counsel's failure to file a direct appeal | Payne: remand required hearings on whether his no-contest plea resulted from any of the alleged ineffective-assistance theories pleaded (five discrete claims) | State: remand should follow this Court's mandate; State agreed Payne was entitled to hearings on his pleaded ineffective-assistance claims | Court: District court misread mandate; limiting hearing to an unpleaded failure-to-appeal claim exceeded the mandate and was void; remand for hearings on the pleaded claims |
| Whether an order that narrows remand beyond the appellate mandate is valid | Payne: such narrowing is beyond the district court’s authority and void | State: (implicitly) district court must follow mandate; parties agreed remand covers pleaded issues | Court: A lower court must follow the appellate mandate; any order differing from the mandate is without jurisdiction and void |
| Whether Payne’s ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred by lack of direct appeal | Payne: not barred because trial counsel remained counsel during appeal period, so first opportunity to raise claims was postconviction | State: trial counsel’s presence affects waiver/ procedural bar analysis | Court: Claims not procedurally barred; remand appropriate for evidentiary hearing on plea-related ineffective assistance |
| Whether a defendant who pleads no contest may challenge pre-plea counsel performance | Payne: may challenge plea voluntariness and whether plea resulted from ineffective assistance | State: general rule that plea waives other defenses, but plea-related ineffective-assistance claims survive | Court: Confirmed that only plea-related ineffective-assistance claims survive and are subject to postconviction review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 289 Neb. 467 (2014) (prior opinion holding Payne’s claims not procedurally barred and remanding for evidentiary hearing on plea-related ineffective-assistance)
- Klingelhoefer v. Monif, 286 Neb. 675 (2013) (lower courts must follow appellate mandate)
- Pursley v. Pursley, 261 Neb. 478 (2001) (mandate and opinion construed together to determine remand scope)
- State v. Shelly, 279 Neb. 728 (2010) (orders exceeding scope of remand are entered without jurisdiction and void)
- State v. Bazer, 276 Neb. 7 (2008) (postconviction relief for plea-related ineffective assistance is cognizable)
- State v. Alfredson, 287 Neb. 477 (2014) (order granting hearing on some claims and denying others is a final order as to claims denied)