Opinion ID: 6320107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: The decision of the district court is affirmed. Affirmed. Freudenberg, J., not participating. 11 See In re Interest of Rondell B., 249 Neb. 928, 546 N.W.2d 801 (1996). See 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 464 (2011). 12 Crawford, supra note 10. 13 State v. Billingsley, 309 Neb. 616, 961 N.W.2d 539 (2021). Miller-Lerman, J., concurring. I concur in the result in this appeal, but I write separately because I believe that the majority’s absence of analysis engenders more questions than it answers and because I wish to clarify the status of this postconviction action going forward. I note first that I agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusion with regard to Burries’ first and second assignments of error. That is, I agree we should affirm the denial of his motion for default judgment. With regard to Burries’ third assignment of error, in which he claims that the district court erred when it overruled and later dismissed his second amended motion for postconviction relief, I note that the majority has affirmed the dismissal - 695 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BURRIES Cite as 310 Neb. 688 solely on the basis that the second amended motion was not verified by Burries. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(1) (Reissue 2016). Even though the lack of verification was not presented to the district court nor the basis upon which the district court dismissed the second amended motion, the lack of verification can be a proper basis to support a dismissal. Under the procedure set forth by the postconviction statutes, it would have been proper for the district court, as part of its preliminary review of the motion, to have raised the lack of verification sua sponte. Because that was a basis upon which the court could have dismissed the second amended motion, dismissal by the district court happened to be acceptable and, therefore, its disposition is properly affirmed by this court for reasoning different than that set forth by the district court. However, the issue of lack of verification was first injected into this case when the State raised the defect for the first time on appeal; I find this problematic and not to be encouraged. The State filed a motion to dismiss the second amended motion in the district court, and nowhere in the motion to dismiss did the State raise the issue of lack of verification. As the majority acknowledges, we have long held that in the normal course of litigation, the failure of a litigant to object to the lack of a verified pleading waives any argument with respect to that defect. See In re Interest of L.D. et al., 224 Neb. 249, 398 N.W.2d 91 (1986). But for some undisclosed reason, the majority chose to broadly declare in this case that “this usual rule is inapplicable in postconviction actions.” Why? The majority correctly notes that under § 29-3001, upon the filing of a motion for postconviction relief, the court reviews the motion to make a preliminary determination whether “the motion and the files and records of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” If the court determines, based on this preliminary review, that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court will dismiss the motion. If, however, the court does not so conclude, then the court is required to, inter alia, cause notice to be served on - 696 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BURRIES Cite as 310 Neb. 688 the county attorney, thereby bringing the State into the postconviction action. During the trial court’s initial review and prior to noticing the State into this case, obviously the State cannot object to such verification defect when it has not yet been given notice and is not yet participating in the action. However, the majority acknowledged that “the State, through its county attorneys, can and often does participate at earlier points in the process.” See, also, State v. Hill, 308 Neb. 511, 525, 955 N.W.2d 303, 311, 312 (2021) (Stacy, J., concurring) (“a district court, as part of its preliminary review of a postconviction motion, has discretion to adopt reasonable procedures to assist the court in determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required,” and “it is not an abuse of discretion to direct the State to file a written response before deciding whether to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing on the motion”). When the State has been brought into the case, it is obliged to raise the absence of verification or waive said objection. Further, “to assist the court,” the State has the obligation to raise the lack of verification because that would show the court that the prisoner was entitled to no relief. The record in this case indicates that the district court brought the State into the case to assist it in its preliminary review of Burries’ postconviction motion. The State filed a motion to dismiss the original motion for postconviction relief which had been filed by counsel and verified by Burries. The State later filed a motion to dismiss the second amended motion which generally tracked the language of its motion to dismiss the original motion. The motion to dismiss did not raise lack of verification as a reason to dismiss the second amended motion, and there is no apparent reason it could not have been raised by the State therein. It is puzzling why the majority broadly announced that the usual rule of waiver does not apply to the State in a postconviction action, and what is more, it was also unnecessary to make that holding in this case. Given the unique statutory procedure in a postconviction action in which the court - 697 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BURRIES Cite as 310 Neb. 688 conducts a preliminary review of the motion to determine whether it shows that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, I think it is appropriate for a court to note lack of verification at that early stage sua sponte. In State v. Amaya, 298 Neb. 70, 77, 902 N.W.2d 675, 681 (2017), we held that if, as part of its preliminary review, the trial court finds the postconviction motion affirmatively shows—either on its face or in combination with the files and records before the court—that it is time barred under § 29-3001(4), the court is permitted, but not obliged, to sua sponte consider and rule upon the timeliness of the motion. Similarly, I think a court in its preliminary review could sua sponte consider and rule upon whether the motion is properly verified. In this case, in its preliminary review, the court could have dismissed the second amended motion because it was not verified, even though the State, although appearing, had waived the verification issue. Given the trial court’s authority, I therefore think this court could affirm the dismissal on this basis without gratuitously and broadly stating without explanation or analysis that the usual rule of waiver does not apply to the State in postconviction actions. Finally, I want to set forth where I think this action currently stands. I note that the district court in its July 22, 2020, order “overruled” the second amended motion; it did not state that it was dismissing the action or that the dismissal was with prejudice. The majority affirms the district court’s order without requiring the district court to take the further step of dismissing the action with prejudice. So the matter is amenable to correction at the trial court level. So when this case returns to the district court, Burries will have the opportunity to request leave to amend the second amended motion to include verification and the district court would be well within its discretion to grant such leave. I note as a general matter that a “defective verification may be corrected by amendment” and that the “failure to verify a pleading or the imperfect verification of a pleading is an amendable - 698 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BURRIES Cite as 310 Neb. 688 defect.” 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 504 at 513 (2011). Leave to amend would be particularly appropriate in this case because the lack of verification was not raised as an issue below, and therefore, Burries did not have notice or the opportunity to request leave to amend to cure that defect. The first two motions filed by Burries were verified, and they were filed at a time when Burries was represented by counsel. Burries filed the second amended motion at a time after counsel was allowed to withdraw and Burries was acting pro se. Burries signed the second amended motion and had his signature notarized; although this is not adequate to qualify as verification without a statement that allegations in the motion were true, Burries, as a pro se litigant, might have believed it sufficient to constitute a verified motion. I note that the U.S. Supreme Court has said with regard to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that it is “entirely contrary to the spirit of the . . . Rules . . . for decisions on the merits to be avoided on the basis of . . . mere technicalities.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181, 83 S. Ct. 227, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962). The Court further stated that the “‘Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.’” Id., 371 U.S. at 181-82 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957)). Postconviction actions involve constitutional challenges related to guilt and lengthy prison terms; the stakes are high. I think that our statutes governing postconviction actions should be read such that a decision on the merits is not avoided based on technicalities and pleading requirements which can be corrected. This court should not participate in “a game” pursuant to which a pleading misstep determines the outcome. Although the Legislature has reasons the statutes require a verified motion, a failure to verify should not prevent relief without giving the litigant the opportunity to correct that defect. - 699 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BURRIES Cite as 310 Neb. 688 In summary, I am puzzled with the analytical path followed by the majority, but for reasons I have articulated, I agree the decision of the district court should be affirmed. I understand that this postconviction action can proceed below if the district court grants Burries leave to file a new motion which corrects the verification defect. The court would then conduct a preliminary review to determine whether the motion and the files and record show that Burries is entitled to no relief or whether an evidentiary hearing should be granted. Therefore, I concur in the result, but I would make clear the matter is remanded for further proceedings.