Opinion ID: 4486788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the reasons stated above, Mata is not entitled to postconviction relief for his constitutional claims involving being 41 See id. 42 Allen, supra note 12. - 345 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MATA Cite as 304 Neb. 326 shackled during jury selection, his having a panel of judges find and weigh mitigating circumstances, the effect of L.B. 268 and the referendum rejecting it, and the Governor’s and State Treasurer’s participation in the referendum proc­ ess. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Mata’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. A ffirmed. Freudenberg, J., not participating.