Dugan v. State
297 Neb. 444
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael M. Dugan was arrested in Wyoming and extradited to Nebraska; he was charged with theft by unlawful taking in Cheyenne County. The arrest warrant was issued after he was taken into custody.
- Dugan moved to reduce excessive bail; that motion was denied and an interlocutory appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- While federal habeas and state proceedings were pending, Dugan moved in state court for an absolute discharge claiming unlawful arrest and improper extradition; the trial court denied the motion and Dugan appealed.
- Trial proceeded while Dugan’s interlocutory appeals were pending; he was convicted, sentenced as a habitual criminal, and his direct appeal was later unsuccessful.
- Dugan filed a state habeas corpus action arguing his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while his interlocutory appeals were pending. The district court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the denial of Dugan’s motion for absolute discharge was not a final, appealable order and thus did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction while Dugan's interlocutory appeals were pending | Dugan: interlocutory appeal from denial of absolute discharge (and bail) perfected and divested trial court of jurisdiction, making subsequent conviction void | State: appeals from nonfinal orders do not perfect appeal; the denial of discharge based on arrest/extradition was not a final order and did not divest jurisdiction | Held: Denial of discharge was not a final order; interlocutory appeal did not divest trial court of jurisdiction; judgment not void |
| Whether denial of motion for absolute discharge based on unlawful arrest/extradition is final and appealable | Dugan: titled "absolute discharge" — asserts right not to be tried; appellate review required pretrial | State: substance controls; arrest/extradition claims do not affect a right not to be tried and are collateral remedies | Held: Motion based on arrest/extradition is not equivalent to statutory speedy-trial discharge; it does not affect a substantial right; not final or appealable |
| Whether denial of motion to reduce bail was appealable and divested trial court | Dugan: denial of bail reduction was appealable and divested jurisdiction | State: denial was interlocutory and Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction (Kula) | Held: Court of Appeals previously dismissed bail appeal for lack of jurisdiction; trial court retained jurisdiction |
| Availability of collateral remedies for unlawful arrest/extradition | Dugan: sought absolute discharge as remedy for unlawful arrest/extradition | State: unlawful arrest/extradition yields collateral remedies (suppression, §1983), not absolute discharge pretrial | Held: Remedies are collateral and vindicated on appeal or civil suit; do not prevent trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (1998) (interlocutory criminal orders not final for appeal)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (2009) (denial of speedy-trial discharge is a final order made during a special proceeding)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (2005) (substance controls over title; denial of discharge styled motion based on statute of limitations was not final)
- State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 (1991) (unlawful arrest/extradition does not impair court's power to try accused)
- State v. Nelson, 276 Neb. 997 (2009) (sentence is the criminal judgment for appellate purposes)