Dugan v. State
297 Neb. 444
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael M. Dugan was arrested in Wyoming and returned to Nebraska after waiving extradition; he was charged with theft in Cheyenne County in 2006.
- Dugan moved to reduce bail; that motion was denied and his interlocutory appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Dugan filed a motion for absolute discharge alleging a defective arrest warrant and improper extradition; the trial court denied the motion and Dugan appealed.
- Trial proceeded while Dugan’s appeal from the denial of absolute discharge was pending; he was convicted, sentenced as a habitual criminal, and committed.
- Dugan voluntarily dismissed his interlocutory appeal from the absolute-discharge denial; his direct appeal of conviction failed. He then sought state habeas relief arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction while his interlocutory appeals were pending, rendering the conviction void.
- The trial court dismissed the habeas petition; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the interlocutory appeals were not from final orders and thus did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction because trial proceeded while interlocutory appeals were pending | Dugan: the interlocutory appeals (bail and absolute discharge) were perfected and divested the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering conviction void | State: appeals were not from final orders; appellate courts never acquired jurisdiction, so trial court retained jurisdiction | Held: Appeals were not perfected because orders were nonfinal; trial court retained jurisdiction; conviction not void |
| Whether denial of motion to reduce bail was immediately appealable | Dugan: denial of bail reduction affected substantial right and was appealable | State: denial was interlocutory and not final under § 25-1902 | Held: Court summarily rejects Dugan’s claim — bail-order appeal lacked jurisdiction and did not divest trial court |
| Whether denial of motion for absolute discharge (based on unlawful arrest/extradition) was final | Dugan: labeled as absolute-discharge motion, thus final and appealable | State: substance controls; arrest/extradition claims do not implicate a right not to be tried and are collateral remedies | Held: Denial was not final — motion challenged arrest/extradition (collateral issues), not a speedy-trial right; interlocutory appeal did not divest jurisdiction |
| Whether claims about unlawful arrest/extradition required staying trial or dismissal | Dugan: arrest/extradition defects required dismissal or halted proceedings | State: unlawfulness of arrest/extradition does not impair court’s power to try defendant; remedies are collateral (suppression, §1983) | Held: Arrest/extradition defects are collateral; they do not prevent trial and are not a basis for absolute discharge precluding prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962, 579 N.W.2d 541 (1998) (discusses finality of pretrial orders)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146, 646 N.W.2d 579 (2002) (standard that habeas attacks review only whether judgment is void)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458, 894 N.W.2d 296 (2017) (appeal jurisdiction requires final order)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (ruling that statutory speedy-trial absolute-discharge motions are final/appealable)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762, 696 N.W.2d 860 (2005) (substance controls; denial of motion styled as discharge on statute-of-limitations grounds was nonfinal)
- State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558, 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991) (unlawful arrest/extradition does not bar trial)