State of Nebraska v. Teon D. Hill

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Teon D. Hill’s motion for postconviction relief as untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4). The court held that the one-year limitation period was not tolled by Hill’s intervening motion for a new trial and declined to apply equitable tolling because Hill was not prevented from filing his postconviction motion during the limitations period.

Holdings

1. For purposes of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(a), issuance of the Nebraska appellate court's mandate definitively establishes both the conclusion of the direct appeal and the date the judgment of conviction became final.
2. The Nebraska Postconviction Act does not toll or extend its one-year limitation period while a different collateral attack, such as a motion for new trial, is pending.
3. The court did not decide whether equitable tolling is legally available under Nebraska's postconviction statute, but held that equitable tolling would not apply because Hill was not prevented from filing his postconviction motion during the limitation period and failed to show due diligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the one-year limitation period for filing a Nebraska postconviction motion was tolled during the pendency of Hill's separate motion for new trial.
2. Whether the limitation period should be equitably tolled under the circumstances.
3. Whether Hill's postconviction motion was untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4).

Disposition

affirmed