State v. Epp

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of William A. Epp’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(e). The court held that no evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel was required because the motion was filed outside the limitations period and presented no justiciable issue of law or fact. The court also declined to address Epp’s constitutional challenge to the limitations statute because he failed to comply with the required notice rule.

Holdings

1. Epp's postconviction motion, filed November 28, 2016, was untimely because it was filed more than one year after August 27, 2011, the applicable limitations date under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(e).
2. The district court properly dismissed Epp's postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing because the motion was untimely and the files and records showed that Epp was entitled to no relief.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel because Epp's postconviction action presented no justiciable issue of law or fact.
4. The court declined to address Epp's claim that § 29-3001(4)(e) violated the federal and state ex post facto clauses because Epp failed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Epp's postconviction motion was untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(e).
2. Whether the district court erred by dismissing the postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointment of postconviction counsel.
4. Whether the court could address Epp's constitutional challenge to § 29-3001(4)(e) when he failed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E).

Disposition

affirmed