State v. Hessler

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Jeffrey Hessler’s successive motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that Hurst v. Florida did not announce a new rule of law and therefore could not trigger the one-year limitations period under Nebraska’s Postconviction Act. The court further explained that, even if timely, Hessler’s constitutional claims lacked merit under McKinney v. Arizona.

Holdings

1. Hurst did not announce a new rule of law and therefore could not trigger the one-year statute of limitations under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(d).
2. Hessler's postconviction claims were time barred because the only triggering event on which he relied, Hurst, did not qualify under § 29-3001(4)(d).
3. Even if Hessler's claims were not time barred, they would not entitle him to postconviction relief because the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances or make the ultimate capital sentencing decision within the permissible sentencing range.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hurst v. Florida constituted a newly recognized constitutional right that triggered Nebraska's one-year postconviction limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(d).
2. Whether Hessler's successive postconviction claims were time barred.
3. Whether Nebraska's capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments under Hurst and related precedent.
4. Whether the district court properly denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed