(1) A prisoner in custody under sentence and claiming a right to be released on the ground that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States, may file a verified motion, in the court which imposed such sentence, stating the grounds relied upon and asking the court to vacate or set aside the sentence.
(2) Unless the motion and the files and records of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served on the county attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, and determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto. If the court finds that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States, the court shall vacate and set aside the judgment and shall discharge the prisoner or resentence the prisoner or grant a new trial as may appear appropriate. Proceedings under the provisions of sections 29-3001 to 29-3004 shall be civil in nature. Costs shall be taxed as in habeas corpus cases.
(3) A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring the production of the prisoner, whether or not a hearing is held. Testimony of the prisoner or other witnesses may be offered by deposition. The court need not entertain a second motion or successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.
(4) 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) The date on which the Supreme Court of the United States denies a writ of certiorari or affirms a conviction appealed from the Nebraska Supreme Court. This subdivision only applies if, within thirty days after petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the prisoner files a notice in the district court of conviction stating that the prisoner has filed such petition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
513
cases (
80 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case:
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 37× “'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 28× “The 1-year statute of limita- tions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) applies to all veri- fied motions for postconviction relief, including successive motions.”
State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 391 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 31× “The State responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing the motion was filed outside the 1-year limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Williams, 889 N.W.2d 99 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 17× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (2) (Reissue 2016) requires that the court grant a prompt hearing unless the motion and the files and records of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”
State v. Goynes, 876 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 27× “We determine that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief was barred by the limitation period set forth in the Nebraska Postconviction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Robertson, 881 N.W.2d 864 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 14× “5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Lotter, 976 N.W.2d 721 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 42× “The effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (3) (Reissue 2016) is to require that all available grounds for postconviction relief must be stated in the initial postconviction motion and, once that motion has been judicially determined, any subsequent postconviction motion regarding…”
State v. Epp, 299 Neb. 703 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 13× “The district court dismissed the motion as filed outside the 1-year limitations period set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Lotter, 917 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4)(d) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Dubray, 885 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (2) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Huggins, 291 Neb. 443 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 35× “443 forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Crawford, 291 Neb. 362 (Neb. 2015).
· cites it 29× “The 1-year period of limitation set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(1) — 26 cases
State v. Robertson, 881 N.W.2d 864 (Neb. 2016).
“5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Dubray, 885 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 2016).
“Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (2) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(2) — 36 cases
State v. Williams, 889 N.W.2d 99 (Neb. 2017).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (2) (Reissue 2016) requires that the court grant a prompt hearing unless the motion and the files and records of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”
State v. Robertson, 881 N.W.2d 864 (Neb. 2016).
“5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70 (Neb. 2017).
“The 1-year statute of limita- tions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) applies to all veri- fied motions for postconviction relief, including successive motions.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(3) — 4 cases
State v. Lotter, 976 N.W.2d 721 (Neb. 2022).
“The effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (3) (Reissue 2016) is to require that all available grounds for postconviction relief must be stated in the initial postconviction motion and, once that motion has been judicially determined, any subsequent postconviction motion regarding…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4) — 55 cases
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70 (Neb. 2017).
“The 1-year statute of limita- tions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) applies to all veri- fied motions for postconviction relief, including successive motions.”
State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 391 (Neb. 2018).
“The State responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing the motion was filed outside the 1-year limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Goynes, 876 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. 2016).
“We determine that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief was barred by the limitation period set forth in the Nebraska Postconviction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Crawford, 291 Neb. 362 (Neb. 2015).
“The 1-year period of limitation set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(a) — 27 cases
State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 391 (Neb. 2018).
“The State responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing the motion was filed outside the 1-year limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Huggins, 291 Neb. 443 (Neb. 2015).
“443 forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(b) — 20 cases
State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 391 (Neb. 2018).
“The State responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing the motion was filed outside the 1-year limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Lotter, 976 N.W.2d 721 (Neb. 2022).
“The effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (3) (Reissue 2016) is to require that all available grounds for postconviction relief must be stated in the initial postconviction motion and, once that motion has been judicially determined, any subsequent postconviction motion regarding…”
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(c) — 19 cases
State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70 (Neb. 2017).
“The 1-year statute of limita- tions in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) applies to all veri- fied motions for postconviction relief, including successive motions.”
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Conn, 300 Neb. 391 (Neb. 2018).
“The State responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing the motion was filed outside the 1-year limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Huggins, 291 Neb. 443 (Neb. 2015).
“443 forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(d) — 16 cases
State v. Goynes, 876 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. 2016).
“We determine that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief was barred by the limitation period set forth in the Nebraska Postconviction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
State v. Lotter, 976 N.W.2d 721 (Neb. 2022).
“The effect of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (3) (Reissue 2016) is to require that all available grounds for postconviction relief must be stated in the initial postconviction motion and, once that motion has been judicially determined, any subsequent postconviction motion regarding…”
State v. Lotter, 917 N.W.2d 850 (Neb. 2018).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4)(d) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(e) — 9 cases
State v. Epp, 299 Neb. 703 (Neb. 2018).
“The district court dismissed the motion as filed outside the 1-year limitations period set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Goynes, 876 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. 2016).
“We determine that Goynes’ second motion for postconviction relief was barred by the limitation period set forth in the Nebraska Postconviction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum.”
State v. Torres, 300 Neb. 694 (Neb. 2018).
“'s, successive motion for postconviction relief was time barred under the 1-year limitations period of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (4) (Reissue 2016) and denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.