State v. McLemore

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Michael E. McLemore's pro se fourth successive motion for postconviction relief, which attacked the one-year time limit in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4) as unconstitutional as applied because his 1999 case predated the 2011 enactment. The court held the relief he sought—an evidentiary hearing on the Act's constitutionality, later reframed in his reply brief as a hearing on a recanted-witness claim—is outside the narrow scope of the Nebraska Postconviction Act, which reaches only constitutional denials rendering a judgment void or voidable, and that in any event the claim was procedurally barred because it could have been raised in his third motion. His claim that the district court 'developed fictitious orders,' and a related reply-brief argument under § 29-3001(4)(c), were not considered because neither was raised in the verified motion.