State v. Phelps
| Citation | 286 Neb. 89,834 N.W.2d 786 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. S–12–1021,S–12–1021 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. David C. Phelps, appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the District Court for Madison County: James G. Kube, Judge. Affirmed.
Melissa A. Wentling, Madison County Public Defender, and Kyle Melia for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and James D. Smith for appellee.
[286 Neb. 89]1. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Appeal and Error. In appeals from postconviction proceedings, an appellate court reviews de novo a determination that the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his or her constitutional rights or that the record and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief.
2. Postconviction: Appeal and Error. Whether a claim raised in a postconviction proceeding is procedurally barred is a question of law.
3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court's conclusion.
4. Postconviction. Postconviction proceedings are not a tool whereby a defendant can continue to bring successive motions for relief.
5. Postconviction. The need for finality in the criminal process requires that a defendant bring all claims for relief at the first opportunity.
6. Postconviction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not entertain a successive motion for postconviction relief unless the motion affirmatively shows on its face that the basis relied upon for relief was not available at the time the movant filed the prior motion.
7. Postconviction. The Nebraska Postconviction Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 293001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum. Supp. 2012), provides that postconviction relief is available to a prisoner in custody under sentence who seeks to be released on the ground that there was a denial or infringement of his constitutional rights such that the judgment was void or voidable.
8. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Proof. In a motion for postconviction relief, the defendant must allege facts which, if proved, constitute a denial or violation of his or her rights under the U.S. or Nebraska Constitution, causing the judgment against the defendant to be void or voidable.
9. Postconviction: Constitutional Law: Proof. A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the defendant's rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution.
10. Postconviction: Proof. If a postconviction motion alleges only conclusionsof fact or law, or if the records and files in the case affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing.
11. Postconviction: Motions for New Trial: Time: Evidence. A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to obtain, outside of the 3–year time limitation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 292103 (Reissue 2008), what is essentially a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
12. Postconviction: Right to Counsel. Under the Nebraska Postconviction Act, it is within the discretion of the trial court as to whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant.
[286 Neb. 90]13. Postconviction: Justiciable Issues: Right to Counsel: Appeal and Error. When the defendant's petition presents a justiciable issue to the district court for postconviction determination, an indigent defendant is entitled to the appointment of counsel. Where the assigned errors in the postconviction petition before the district court are either procedurally barred or without merit, establishing that the postconviction proceeding contained no justiciable issue of law or fact, it is not an abuse of discretion to fail to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant.
David C. Phelps appeals from an order finding his motion for postconviction relief should be denied without an evidentiary hearing. Because we conclude that Phelps' motion failed to allege sufficient facts which, if proved, would entitle him to postconviction relief, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Phelps was convicted of kidnapping in the 1987 disappearance of 9–year–old Jill Cutshall, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed his conviction and sentence in 1992.1 In 2012, Phelps filed the underlying motion for postconviction relief in the district court for Madison County. The motion alleged that he had just recently learned of the existence of newly discovered evidence in the form of a diary. Phelps alleged that the diary had “disturbingly graphic detail of the abduction, rape, and murder of four women at [a] farm near Chambers, Nebraska,” and that Cutshall was one of the four victims. Phelps alleged that the diary was in the possession of the Valley County Attorney or the Nebraska Attorney General and that it was “only given to authorities” around March 7.
The district court denied postconviction relief. It reasoned that Phelps had not alleged any facts related to the abduction, rape, or murder of Cutshall and that thus, it was not necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The court also found that to the extent Phelps' motion sought a new trial, it was improper because it was filed more than 3 years after the verdict.2 In addition, the court found that the postconviction motion was procedurally barred by Phelps' two previous postconviction requests, which were both denied. Phelps filed this timely appeal.
Phelps assigns as error the district court's determination that his postconviction motion was procedurally barred and that it did not contain sufficiently specific factual allegations to require an evidentiary hearing. He also assigns that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for the appointment of postconviction counsel.
In appeals from postconviction proceedings, an appellate court reviews de novo a determination that the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate a violation of his or her constitutional rights or that the record and files affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief. 3
Whether a claim raised in a postconviction proceeding is procedurally barred is a question of law.4 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower court's conclusion.5
The first question before us is whether this postconviction proceeding is procedurally barred. In 2009, Phelps filed his first motion for postconviction relief. In 2010, the motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing. In 2011, Phelps filed a petition to vacate and set aside his sentence. The district court treated this petition as a second motion for postconviction relief and again denied relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Postconviction proceedings are not a tool whereby a defendant can continue to bring successive motions for relief.6 The need for finality in the criminal process requires that a defendant bring all claims for relief at the first opportunity.7 Thus, an appellate court will not entertain a successive motion for postconviction relief unless the motion affirmatively shows on its face that the basis relied upon for relief was not available at the time the movant filed the prior motion.8
Phelps filed the postconviction motion at issue on August 9, 2012. In it, he alleged that he is entitled to relief based on a diary that was first given to authorities in March. Because Phelps' motion affirmatively shows on its face that the ground for relief could not have been asserted at the time of the prior postconviction proceedings, the current proceeding is not procedurally barred. The district court erred in finding it was.
The next question is whether Phelps alleged sufficient facts to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction motion. The Nebraska PostconvictionAct, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 293001 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum. Supp. 2012), provides that postconviction relief is available to a prisoner in custody under sentence who seeks to be released on the ground that there was a denial or infringement of his constitutional rights such that the judgment was void or voidable.9 Thus, in a motion for postconviction relief, the defendant must allege facts which, if proved, constitute a denial or violation of his or her rights under the U.S. or Nebraska Constitution, causing the judgment against the defendant to be void or voidable.10
A court must grant an evidentiary hearing to resolve the claims in a postconviction motion when the motion contains factual allegations which, if proved, constitute an infringement of the defendant's rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution.11 If a postconviction motion alleges only conclusions of fact or law, or if the records and files in the case affirmatively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing.12
Phelps alleged no factual basis on which a court could conclude that his judgment of conviction was void or voidable because of a violation of his constitutional rights at trial or in the prosecution of his case. His allegations focus solely upon the diary, which he characterizes as “newly discovered evidence.” Phelps alleges that because the time period for filing a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence has elapsed, his only means of bringing the diary to the court's attention is through a motion for postconviction relief. He is only partially correct. It is true that under § 292103, a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence in a criminal case cannot be filed more than 3 years after the date of the verdict. But we have held that a motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lotter
...Id. , 513 U.S. at 341.112 Id. , 513 U.S. at 336.113 See, e.g., State v. Dubray , 294 Neb. 937, 885 N.W.2d 540 (2016) ; State v. Phelps , 286 Neb. 89, 834 N.W.2d 786 (2013) ; State v. Edwards , 284 Neb. 382, 821 N.W.2d 680 (2012), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Avina-Murillo , 301 Ne......
-
State v. Lotter
...Id., 513 U.S. at 341. [112] Id., 513 U.S. at 336. [113] See, e.g., State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937, 885 N.W.2d 540 (2016); State v. Phelps, 286 Neb. 89, 834 N.W.2d 786 (2013); State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382, 821 N.W.2d 680 (2012), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Avina-Murillo, 301 Neb.......
-
Dejong v. Nebraska
...in that such a claim could arguably amount to a violation of a movant's procedural or substantive due process rights. State v. Phelps , 286 Neb. 89, 834 N.W.2d 786 (2013). However, in order to trigger a court's consideration of whether continued incarceration could give rise to a constituti......
-
State v. Harris
...682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012).59 See id. Accord, e.g., Canales v. Stephens, 765 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2014).60 State v. Phelps, 286 Neb. 89, 834 N.W.2d 786 (2013). ...