Dugan v. State
900 N.W.2d 528
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael Dugan was arrested in Wyoming and returned to Nebraska after waiving extradition; the Nebraska arrest warrant was issued after his custody. He was charged with theft and later tried, convicted, and sentenced as a habitual offender.
- Dugan filed pretrial motions: (1) to reduce excessive bail (appealed May 2007) and (2) for absolute discharge alleging defective warrant and improper extradition (denied; appealed Oct. 2007).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the bail-reduction appeal for lack of jurisdiction as interlocutory; Dugan later voluntarily dismissed the absolute-discharge appeal after conviction.
- Trial proceeded while Dugan’s interlocutory appeals (and a federal habeas petition) were pending; he was convicted Oct. 2007 and sentenced Dec. 2007.
- After direct appeal failed, Dugan sought state habeas relief claiming his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while his interlocutory appeals were pending. The district court dismissed the habeas petition; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction while interlocutory appeals were pending | Dugan: interlocutory appeals (bail reduction; absolute discharge) were perfected and divested trial court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent conviction void | State: appeals were not from final orders (interlocutory); appellate courts acquired no jurisdiction, so trial court retained jurisdiction | Court: Appeals were not perfected because orders were not final; trial court retained jurisdiction; conviction not void |
| Whether denial of motion to reduce bail was a final, appealable order | Dugan: denial affected substantial right; should be immediately appealable | State: denial was interlocutory and nonfinal under Kula; Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction | Court: Agreed with State; denial was not final and did not divest trial court (Court of Appeals summary rejection affirmed) |
| Whether denial of motion for absolute discharge (based on alleged unlawful arrest/extradition) was final | Dugan: styled as absolute discharge affecting substantial right; appeal should have stayed proceedings | State: substance concerned arrest/extradition, not statutory speedy-trial right; order not final | Court: Motion concerned collateral remedies (not a right not to be tried); denial did not affect substantial right and was not final |
| Whether unlawful arrest/extradition could require dismissal rather than evidentiary remedies | Dugan: unlawful arrest/extradition invalidated jurisdiction to try him | State: method of arrest/extradition does not impair court's power to try the accused; remedies are exclusionary rule or §1983 | Court: Agreed with State; unlawful arrest/extradition do not deprive trial court of jurisdiction; collateral remedies available |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (1998) (interlocutory order on bail not final; appellate jurisdiction limited)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (2009) (ruling on statutory speedy-trial discharge affects a substantial right and is appealable)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (2005) (denial of motion styled as discharge based on statute-of-limitations defense is not final)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146 (2002) (only void judgments are subject to habeas collateral attack; appellate review in such cases is limited to legal questions)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (2017) (appellate jurisdiction requires appeal from a final order or judgment)