State v. Amaya

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing and without requiring a response from the State. The district court concluded that the motion (1) was time-barred under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4), (2) impermissibly sought to raise grounds for relief that either had been litigated in Appellant’s first postconviction motion or were available at the time of his first motion, and (3) was frivolous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Appellant’s successive motion for postconviction relief without notice and hearing, (2) denying Appellant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and denying his motion to amend the successive postconviction motion, and (3) denying Appellant’s motion for appointment of postconviction counsel. View "State v. Amaya" on Justia Law