STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V. DAUNTE L. GOYNES, APPELLANT.
No. S-15-352
Nebraska Supreme Court
April 8, 2016
293 Neb. 288
MILLER-LERMAN, J.
Nebraska Advance Sheets
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. - Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Proof. A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the defendant‘s rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution.
- Postconviction: Proof. If a postconviction motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law, or if the records and files in the case affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing.
- Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Appeal and Error. An appellate court gives statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning, and the court will not look beyond the statute to determine legislative intent when the words are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
- Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In reading a statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense.
- Statutes. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of a statute.
- Postconviction. States are not obligated to provide a postconviction relief procedure.
Daunte L. Goynes, pro se.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.
HEAVICAN, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, and STACY, JJ.
MILLER-LERMAN, J.
NATURE OF CASE
Daunte L. Goynes was convicted of murder in the second degree and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for the death of Aaron Lofton. Goynes was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 60 years to life for the murder conviction and a term of 10 to 20 years for the weapon conviction, to be served consecutively. On direct appeal, we affirmed Goynes’ convictions and sentences. See State v. Goynes, 278 Neb. 230, 768 N.W.2d 458 (2009).
On August 27, 2012, Goynes filed his first motion for postconviction relief, which the district court for Douglas County denied. On August 28, 2013, we dismissed his appeal to this court in case No. S-13-464.
On February 5, 2015, Goynes filed a second motion for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without holding an evidentiary hearing. The district court thereafter denied Goynes’ motion to alter or amend. Goynes appeals. We determine that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief was barred by the limitation period set forth in the Nebraska Postconviction Act,
The events underlying Goynes’ convictions and sentences involve the shooting death of Lofton. The shooting occurred in February 2007, on the day before Goynes turned 18 years old. In our opinion on direct appeal, we set forth the facts of the case in detail. See State v. Goynes, supra.
After a trial, the jury found Goynes guilty of murder in the second degree and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Goynes was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 60 years to life for the murder conviction and a term of 10 to 20 years for the weapon conviction, to be served consecutively.
Goynes had the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal. Goynes assigned two errors on direct appeal, generally arguing that the trial court erred when it excluded certain evidence and when it denied his motion for a new trial. In our opinion on direct appeal, we found no merit to Goynes’ assignments of error and affirmed his convictions and sentences. See State v. Goynes, supra.
On August 27, 2012, Goynes filed his first motion for postconviction relief, claiming that his counsel at trial and on appeal was ineffective for various reasons. In his first motion for postconviction relief, Goynes did not allege that his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), which had been decided within the year preceding the filing of his first motion for postconviction relief.
On January 23, 2013, the district court filed an order in which it denied Goynes’ first postconviction motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. On August 28, 2013, his appeal to this court was dismissed in case No. S-13-464.
On February 5, 2015, Goynes filed his second motion for postconviction relief. This is the motion at issue in this appeal. In his second motion for postconviction relief, Goynes claimed that his constitutional right to be free from cruel or unusual punishment was violated because the sentencing court failed to hold an individualized hearing regarding possible
On February 17, 2015, the district court filed an order in which it denied Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The district court determined that Goynes’ motion was barred by the limitation period found in the Nebraska Postconviction Act,
A one-year period of limitation shall apply to the filing of a verified motion for postconviction relief. The one-year limitation period shall run from the later of:
(a) The date the judgment of conviction became final by the conclusion of a direct appeal or the expiration of the time for filing a direct appeal;
(b) The date on which the factual predicate of the constitutional claim or claims alleged could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence;
(c) The date on which an impediment created by state action, in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Nebraska or any law of this state, is removed, if the prisoner was prevented from filing a verified motion by such state action;
(d) The date on which a constitutional claim asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Nebraska Supreme Court, if the newly recognized right has been made applicable retroactively to cases on postconviction collateral review; or
(e) August 27, 2011.
On February 27, 2015, Goynes filed a motion to alter or amend in which he contended that his second motion for postconviction relief was not untimely or barred as a successive motion, because he was asserting a constitutional claim filed within 1 year of recognition of a new right. See
On March 23, 2015, the district court filed an order in which it denied Goynes’ motion to alter or amend. The court reasoned that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief “never makes any reference to Mantich” and that in any event, Miller and Mantich “are not applicable to the case at hand, because [Goynes] did not receive a mandatory life sentence without the consideration of parole.”
Goynes appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Goynes assigns, restated, that the district court erred when it denied his motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when he received “a sentence of the functional equivalent of life for an offense [Goynes] committed when [Goynes] was a juvenile.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. State v. Irish, 292 Neb. 513, 873 N.W.2d 161 (2016).
ANALYSIS
Goynes generally claims that the district court erred when it denied his second motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, Goynes asserts that his motion should have been granted or that at least the court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on his motion, because his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when he received a sentence that is the functional equivalent to life for a crime that he committed when he was under the age of 18. Although our
[2,3] A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the defendant‘s rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution. State v. DeJong, 292 Neb. 305, 872 N.W.2d 275 (2015). If a postconviction motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law, or if the records and files in the case affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing. Id.
In this case, Goynes, who was 17 years old at the time of the crime, was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 60 years to life for the murder conviction and a consecutive term of 10 to 20 years for the weapon conviction. Relying on Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), Goynes asserts that his cumulative sentence of imprisonment of 70 years to life violates his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. “In Miller v. Alabama, [supra], the Court held that a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense could not be sentenced to life in prison without parole absent consideration of the juvenile‘s special circumstances in light of the principles and purposes of juvenile sentencing.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 136 S. Ct. 718, 725, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016). Miller further “held that mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual punishments.‘” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. at 726, quoting Miller v. Alabama, supra.
On appeal, the State contends that Miller does not apply and that Goynes is not entitled to relief, because neither second degree murder nor use of a deadly weapon are mandatorily
The statutory limitation periods regarding postconviction motions are found at
A one-year period of limitation shall apply to the filing of a verified motion for postconviction relief. The one-year limitation period shall run from the later of:
. . . .
(d) The date on which a constitutional claim asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Nebraska Supreme Court, if the newly recognized right has been made applicable retroactively to cases on postconviction collateral review[.]
[4-6] In interpreting
According to Goynes, the claim he asserts in his second postconviction motion filed February 5, 2015, seeks individualized sentencing based on Miller, which was decided on June 25, 2012, and found to be retroactive on collateral review in our case of State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320, 842 N.W.2d 716 (2014), filed February 7, 2014, and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 136 S. Ct. 718, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016), filed January 25, 2016. The issue before us is whether Nebraska‘s postconviction statute is available to Goynes to adjudicate his claim asserted under the U.S. Supreme Court case of Miller.
To determine the postconviction limitation period applicable to this case, we look to the plain language of
For completeness, we note that Goynes argues that the 1-year period for filing his second postconviction motion should not have begun until our decision in Mantich finding retroactivity was filed. Goynes asserts that his second motion for postconviction relief, which was filed within the year after Mantich, was timely. We reject Goynes’ argument. Goynes’ assertion is not consistent with the plain language of
Our reading of the limitation period in
A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section [§ 2255]. The limitation period shall run from the latest of—
. . . .
(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review[.]
In Dodd, the petitioner argued that the limitation period did not begin to run until the right at issue had been found to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The Government argued that the limitation period began to run on the date the U.S. Supreme Court initially recognized the right, a position with which the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Dodd v. United States, supra; Dodd v. U.S., 365 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2004).
In affirming the decision of the 11th Circuit, the Court stated:
We believe that the text of [§ 2255(f)(3)] settles this dispute. It unequivocally identifies one, and only one, date from which the 1-year limitation period is measured: “the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court.” We “must presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 117 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1992). What Congress has said in [§ 2255(f)(3)] is clear: An applicant has one year from the
date on which the right he asserts was initially recognized by this Court.
Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. at 357.
In Dodd, the Court made clear that the second clause—“‘if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review‘—imposes a condition on the applicability of this subsection.” 545 U.S. at 358. Dodd continues: “As long as the conditions in the second clause are satisfied so that [§ 2255(f)(3)] applies in the first place, that [second] clause has no impact whatsoever on the date from which the 1-year limitation period . . . begins to run.” Id. In Dodd, the Court recognized it was a legislative decision that
[7] It is well recognized that states are not obligated to provide a postconviction relief procedure. State v. Lotter, 278 Neb. 466, 771 N.W.2d 551 (2009). See, also, Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 10, 109 S. Ct. 2765, 106 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989) (stating that “[s]tate collateral proceedings are not constitutionally required as an adjunct to the state criminal proceeding and serve a more limited purpose than either the trial or appeal“). In a concurring opinion in Giarratano, Justice O‘Connor observed that “[a] postconviction proceeding is not a part of the criminal process itself, but is instead a civil action designed to overturn a presumptively valid criminal judgment” and is not constitutionally required. 492 U.S. at 13 (O‘Connor, J., concurring). Nevertheless, the Nebraska Postconviction Act provides a defendant in custody with a civil procedure by which a defendant can present a motion alleging “there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of
With respect to state statutes regarding postconviction review, we agree with the Missouri Supreme Court which has stated:
States have substantial discretion to develop and implement programs for prisoners seeking post-conviction review. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 559, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 1995, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). A state may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to an adjudication, Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1158, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982), including reasonable procedures governing post-conviction relief. Wiglesworth v. Wyrick, 531 S.W.2d 713, 717 (Mo. banc 1976).
Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. 1989) (en banc). See, also, 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 179 at 394 (2008) (stating that “[l]imitation periods for seeking postconviction relief are generally set by statute. Such limitations have withstood constitutional challenge, even in death penalty cases“). Our research is in accord.
We are mindful that our determination that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief based on his rights under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), is untimely under the Nebraska Postconviction Act, will prevent Goynes from availing himself of this collateral remedy. And we are aware of the Court‘s recent statement that “when a new substantive rule of constitutional law controls the outcome of a case, the Constitution requires state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to that rule.” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 136 S. Ct. 718, 729, 193 L. Ed. 2d 599 (2016). Nevertheless, we believe our decision is in harmony with the holding in Montgomery, because
In this regard, we note that in Montgomery, the Court stated that “[w]here state collateral review proceedings permit prisoners to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement, States cannot refuse to give retroactive effect to a substantive constitutional right that determines the outcome of that challenge.” 136 S. Ct. at 731-32 (emphasis supplied). And the Court further recognized that state collateral review may not be an available remedy when the Court stated that “[i]n adjudicating claims under its collateral review procedures a State may not deny a controlling right asserted under the Constitution, assuming the claim is properly presented in the case.” 136 S. Ct. at 732 (emphasis supplied).
Pursuant to our state collateral review proceedings, namely the Nebraska Postconviction Act, Goynes was permitted to bring a postconviction motion setting forth his Miller claim. However, due to untimeliness under
In Smith, we indicated that a claim that a criminal sentence is void may be a ground for relief in the form of a writ of habeas corpus. And we are aware that it has been suggested that a claim alleging a sentence is cruel and unusual under Miller as a violation of the Eighth Amendment might
CONCLUSION
We determine that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief is barred as untimely under
MCCORMACK, J., not participating.
AFFIRMED.