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 by unlawful taking in Cheyenne County.
- Dugan moved to reduce excessive bail; that motion was denied and his interlocutory appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under State v. Kula.
- Dugan filed a federal habeas petition and a district-court motion for absolute discharge alleging defective arrest warrant and improper extradition; the trial court denied the discharge motion and Dugan appealed that denial to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
- Trial proceeded while Dugan’s appeal from the denial of absolute discharge (and federal habeas) was pending; Dugan was convicted and sentenced as a habitual criminal.
- Dugan voluntarily dismissed the interlocutory appeal from the denial of absolute discharge; his direct appeal of conviction failed, and he then sought state habeas relief arguing his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the interlocutory appeals were pending.
- The district court dismissed the state habeas petition; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the denial of the absolute-discharge motion (based on alleged unlawful arrest/extradition) was not a final appealable order and thus did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dugan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction while Dugan’s interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to reduce bail was pending | Dugan: The pending appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent conviction void | State: Bail-order appeal was not perfected (nonfinal), so trial court retained jurisdiction | Held: Appeal was not perfected; trial court retained jurisdiction (appeal for bail dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) |
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction while Dugan’s interlocutory appeal of denial of motion for absolute discharge (claiming illegal arrest/extradition) was pending | Dugan: Denial of absolute discharge was final; appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction making conviction void | State: Denial was not a final order because the motion alleged unlawful arrest/extradition—remedies are collateral and do not affect a right not to be tried | Held: Denial was not final—motion substance did not implicate a right not to be tried; trial court retained jurisdiction; conviction not void |
| Whether alleged unlawful arrest/extradition can support an absolute discharge (speedy-trial style) | Dugan: Unlawful arrest/extradition warranted absolute discharge pretrial | State: Illegality of arrest/extradition does not bar trial; relief is collateral (suppression, §1983), not a bar to prosecution | Held: Allegations of unlawful arrest/extradition cannot legally support absolute discharge; they do not affect the subject matter or a substantial right to preclude trial |
| Proper remedy to challenge arrest/extradition or other pretrial defects | Dugan: Habeas may void judgment if trial occurred while court lacked jurisdiction | State: Collateral remedies (suppression, appeal, civil suit) are appropriate; habeas only for void judgments | Held: Habeas relief denied because judgment was not void; interlocutory appeals were not from final orders, so habeas unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (Neb. 1998) (appealability of interlocutory orders in criminal cases)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146 (Neb. 2002) (standard that habeas may collaterally attack only void judgments)
- Bradley v. Hopkins, 246 Neb. 646 (Neb. 1994) (habeas corpus as collateral attack on void conviction)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (Neb. 2017) (appellate jurisdiction requires appeal from a final order)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2009) (denial of statutory speedy trial absolute discharge is a final, appealable order)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (Neb. 2005) (substance over title--denial of motion styled as discharge based on statute of limitations was not final)
- State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 (Neb. 1991) (unlawful arrest/extradition does not divest court of power to try an accused)