State v. Mata

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Raymond Mata Jr.'s second amended motion for postconviction relief. The court held that his shackling claim was procedurally barred, his challenge to Nebraska's capital sentencing scheme was untimely, and his claims concerning the repeal and referendum of the death penalty failed because the legislative act was suspended before it took effect. The court also rejected the related constitutional claims concerning cruel and unusual punishment, due process, and bill of attainder.

Holdings

1. Mata's shackling claim was procedurally barred because the claim had been litigated on direct appeal and his current argument based on Deck v. Missouri merely sought to relitigate the issue.
2. Hurst v. Florida did not create a newly recognized, retroactively applicable constitutional right requiring a jury to find or weigh mitigating circumstances in Nebraska's capital sentencing scheme. Therefore, Hurst did not trigger the postconviction limitations period, and Mata's sentencing claims were untimely and procedurally barred.
3. L.B. 268 never changed Mata's death sentence to life imprisonment because the referendum petition suspended the act before its effective date. Consequently, repeal of L.B. 268 did not reimpose a death sentence, and Mata's related cruel-and-unusual-punishment, due-process, and bill-of-attainder claims failed.
4. Mata was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by political debate concerning the death penalty, the possibility that L.B. 268 would change his sentence, or the possibility that his death sentence would remain after the referendum.
5. Mata's allegations concerning the Governor's and State Treasurer's participation in the referendum process did not establish that the referendum was invalid, and the district court properly denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mata could use postconviction relief to relitigate his claim that shackling during jury selection violated his constitutional rights when the issue had been or could have been litigated on direct appeal.
2. Whether Hurst v. Florida created a newly recognized, retroactively applicable constitutional right requiring a jury rather than a judicial panel to find and weigh mitigating circumstances in Nebraska capital sentencing, thereby triggering the postconviction limitations period.
3. Whether L.B. 268 changed Mata's death sentence to life imprisonment before the referendum petition was filed and whether the act's repeal consequently reimposed a death sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment, due process, or the prohibition against bills of attainder.
4. Whether political debate and the possibility that Mata's sentence might be changed by L.B. 268 or its referendum constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
5. Whether alleged participation by the Governor and State Treasurer in the referendum campaign invalidated the referendum under separation-of-powers principles and required an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed