Opinion ID: 1232650
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Nebraska Postconviction Statute.

Text: Postconviction relief in Nebraska is authorized by statute. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-3001 (Reissue 1995) provides, in part, as follows: A prisoner in custody under sentence and claiming a right to be released on the ground that there was such a denial or infringement of the rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States, may file a verified motion [for postconviction relief]. Under the postconviction statute, [t]he court need not entertain a second or successive motions for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner. Id. We have stated that 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. State v. Harris, 267 Neb. 771, 677 N.W.2d 147 (2004); State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245, 664 N.W.2d 892 (2003). We have stated that [t]he judgment in a criminal case is the sentence. State v. Reeves, 258 Neb. 511, 524, 604 N.W.2d 151, 161 (2000). We have also stated that [a] finding of guilty is a conviction, but it is not a judgment or final order, and there can be no appeal until a sentence has been imposed. State v. Hess, 261 Neb. 368, 375, 622 N.W.2d 891, 899 (2001). In this postconviction case, Moore does not challenge his underlying conviction. Instead, Moore makes two claims relative to the State's carrying out his sentence of death. First, he claims that electrocution as the statutorily mandated method of execution in Nebraska is unconstitutional. Second, he claims that the electrocution procedure recited in the new protocol summarized above is unconstitutional. We consider these claims separately.