section 29-3001(4) year limitations period in Nebraska

2018Here, Conn argues equitable tolling applies because his postconviction motion alleged that he “requested, on three (3) occasions, that trial counsel file a direct appeal of the District Court’s January 27, 2012, sentence; and, trial counsel failed to do so.”27 He argues that he “acted reasonably” when 23 See id. 24 Id. 25 Huggins, supra note 13 . 26 Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 , 130 S. Ct. 2549 , 177 L.

2018Here, Conn argues equitable tolling applies because his postconviction motion alleged that he “requested, on three (3) occasions, that trial counsel file a direct appeal of the District Court’s January 27, 2012, sentence; and, trial counsel failed to do so.”27 He argues that he “acted reasonably” when 23 See id. 24 Id. 25 Huggins, supra note 13 . 26 Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 , 130 S. Ct. 2549 , 177 L.

2018Reeves and Lotter were decided at a time when the limitations period in § 29-3001(4)(a) did not exist, and because both cases referred to final convictions in the context of a retroactivity 14 State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245 , 664 N.W.2d 892 (2003) (superseded in part by statute as stated in State v. Harris, 292 Neb. 186 , 871 N.W.2d 762 (2015)). 15 Id. at 254 , 664 N.W.2d at 903 . - 397 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CONN Cite as 300 Neb. 391 analysis, and not in the context of interpreting § 29-3001(4), they do not provide support for Conn’s contention.

2018Reeves and Lotter were decided at a time when the limitations period in § 29-3001(4)(a) did not exist, and because both cases referred to final convictions in the context of a retroactivity 14 State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245 , 664 N.W.2d 892 (2003) (superseded in part by statute as stated in State v. Harris, 292 Neb. 186 , 871 N.W.2d 762 (2015)). 15 Id. at 254 , 664 N.W.2d at 903 . - 397 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CONN Cite as 300 Neb. 391 analysis, and not in the context of interpreting § 29-3001(4), they do not provide support for Conn’s contention.

2018Reeves and Lotter were decided at a time when the limitations period in § 29-3001(4)(a) did not exist, and because both cases referred to final convictions in the context of a retroactivity 14 State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245 , 664 N.W.2d 892 (2003) (superseded in part by statute as stated in State v. Harris, 292 Neb. 186 , 871 N.W.2d 762 (2015)). 15 Id. at 254 , 664 N.W.2d at 903 . - 397 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CONN Cite as 300 Neb. 391 analysis, and not in the context of interpreting § 29-3001(4), they do not provide support for Conn’s contention.

2018Reeves and Lotter were decided at a time when the limitations period in § 29-3001(4)(a) did not exist, and because both cases referred to final convictions in the context of a retroactivity 14 State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245 , 664 N.W.2d 892 (2003) (superseded in part by statute as stated in State v. Harris, 292 Neb. 186 , 871 N.W.2d 762 (2015)). 15 Id. at 254 , 664 N.W.2d at 903 . - 397 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CONN Cite as 300 Neb. 391 analysis, and not in the context of interpreting § 29-3001(4), they do not provide support for Conn’s contention.

2026The 1-year period in § 29-3001(4)(b) begins to run when the objective facts underlying the claim could reasonably be discovered, and that date is “distinct from discovering that those facts are actionable.” 311 Neb. at 900 , 976 N.W.2d 738 .

2025Where it applies, the doctrine of equitable tolling permits a court to excuse a party’s failure to comply with the statute of limitations where, because of disability, irremediable lack of information, or other circumstances beyond his or her control, the plaintiff cannot be expected to file suit on time. 20 In a case decided last year, after observing that we were being asked for the fifth time to consider whether equitable tolling may be applied to the 1-year limitation period in § 29-3001(4), we stated: “[E]ven if [the prisoner] is correct and he would be entitled to equitable tolling based

2025Where it applies, the doctrine of equitable tolling permits a court to excuse a party’s failure to comply with the statute of limitations where, because of disability, irremediable lack of information, or other circumstances beyond his or her control, the plaintiff cannot be expected to file suit on time. 20 In a case decided last year, after observing that we were being asked for the fifth time to consider whether equitable tolling may be applied to the 1-year limitation period in § 29-3001(4), we stated: “[E]ven if [the prisoner] is correct and he would be entitled to equitable tolling based

2025Where it applies, the doctrine of equitable tolling permits a court to excuse a party’s failure to comply with the statute of limitations where, because of disability, irremediable lack of information, or other circumstances beyond his or her control, the plaintiff cannot be expected to file suit on time. 20 In a case decided last year, after observing that we were being asked for the fifth time to consider whether equitable tolling may be applied to the 1-year limitation period in § 29-3001(4), we stated: “[E]ven if [the prisoner] is correct and he would be entitled to equitable tolling based

2025Where it applies, the doctrine of equitable tolling permits a court to excuse a party’s failure to comply with the statute of limitations where, because of disability, irremediable lack of information, or other circumstances beyond his or her control, the plaintiff cannot be expected to file suit on time. 20 In a case decided last year, after observing that we were being asked for the fifth time to consider whether equitable tolling may be applied to the 1-year limitation period in § 29-3001(4), we stated: “[E]ven if [the prisoner] is correct and he would be entitled to equitable tolling based

2021Hill maintains that upon the issuance of our mandate in 2021 concerning his motion for new trial, he should have 21 days to file his motion for 3 Id. 4 State v. Edwards, 301 Neb. 579 , 919 N.W.2d 530 (2018). 5 State v. Koch, 304 Neb. 133 , 933 N.W.2d 585 (2019). - 651 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. HILL postconviction relief based upon tolling.

2021Hill maintains that upon the issuance of our mandate in 2021 concerning his motion for new trial, he should have 21 days to file his motion for 3 Id. 4 State v. Edwards, 301 Neb. 579 , 919 N.W.2d 530 (2018). 5 State v. Koch, 304 Neb. 133 , 933 N.W.2d 585 (2019). - 651 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. HILL postconviction relief based upon tolling.

2021Hill maintains that upon the issuance of our mandate in 2021 concerning his motion for new trial, he should have 21 days to file his motion for 3 Id. 4 State v. Edwards, 301 Neb. 579 , 919 N.W.2d 530 (2018). 5 State v. Koch, 304 Neb. 133 , 933 N.W.2d 585 (2019). - 651 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. HILL postconviction relief based upon tolling.

2021Hill maintains that upon the issuance of our mandate in 2021 concerning his motion for new trial, he should have 21 days to file his motion for 3 Id. 4 State v. Edwards, 301 Neb. 579 , 919 N.W.2d 530 (2018). 5 State v. Koch, 304 Neb. 133 , 933 N.W.2d 585 (2019). - 651 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. HILL postconviction relief based upon tolling.

2016Our reading of the limitation period in § 29-3001(4)(d) is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s reading of the - 298 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. GOYNES Cite as 293 Neb. 288 comparable limitation period found at 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (f)(3) (2012), formerly codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , ¶ 6(3) (2006).

2016The 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 fil- ing a verif

2015Because the period of limitation under § 29-3001(4) is in the nature of a statute - 373 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CRAWFORD Cite as 291 Neb. 362 of limitations, the State cannot raise the issue for the first time on appeal.