Dugan v. State
297 Neb. 444
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael Dugan was arrested in Wyoming, waived extradition to Nebraska, and charged with theft; the Nebraska arrest warrant had not been issued until after his custody.
- Dugan moved to reduce excessive bail; that motion was denied and his interlocutory appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
- While a federal habeas petition and an appeal from denial of a motion for absolute discharge (claiming defective arrest/extradition) were pending, the trial proceeded; Dugan was convicted and sentenced as a habitual criminal.
- Dugan voluntarily dismissed his interlocutory appeal from the denial of absolute discharge; his direct appeal of the conviction was unsuccessful.
- Dugan then filed a state habeas corpus petition claiming his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the interlocutory appeals were pending; the district court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was divested of jurisdiction during interlocutory appeal of denial of motion for absolute discharge | Dugan: Denial was final; appeal divested trial court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent conviction void | State: Denial concerned arrest/extradition (not a speedy-trial special proceeding) and was not a final order, so trial court retained jurisdiction | Court held the denial was not final; appeal was interlocutory and did not divest trial court of jurisdiction |
| Whether motion alleging unlawful arrest/extradition should be treated as a statutory speedy-trial absolute discharge motion | Dugan: Motion titled absolute discharge; sought dismissal based on procedural defects in arrest/extradition | State: Substance controls; unlawful arrest/extradition claims are collateral remedies, not statutory speedy-trial claims | Court held substance controls; unlawful arrest/extradition are collateral and do not implicate a right not to be tried |
| Whether interlocutory appellate review was required to vindicate a substantial right before conviction | Dugan: Argued substantial right affected such that postponing review would undermine rights | State: Alleged arrest/extradition defects do not affect the subject matter of the criminal litigation and can be remedied on direct appeal or via suppression/civil suits | Court held the order did not affect a substantial right requiring immediate appellate review; appellate jurisdiction never attached |
| Whether habeas corpus is proper to collaterally attack the conviction as void | Dugan: Conviction void because trial court lacked jurisdiction; habeas is the vehicle to raise void-judgment claims | State: Conviction valid because trial court retained jurisdiction; habeas not warranted | Court held habeas relief was not available because the judgment was not void; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (discussed interlocutory appealability in criminal matters)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146 (appellate review of questions of law in habeas actions)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (appealability requires appeal from final order or judgment)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (denial of statutory speedy-trial discharge is a final, appealable order)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (substance of motion controls; denial of motion styled "discharge" based on statute of limitations was not final)
- State v. Masat, 239 Neb. 849 (unlawful arrest does not impair trial court's power to try an accused)