Dugan v. State
297 Neb. 444
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael Dugan was arrested in Wyoming under a Nebraska warrant that was issued after his custody; he waived extradition and was returned to Nebraska and charged with theft.
- Dugan moved to reduce excessive bail; that interlocutory appeal to the Neb. Ct. App. was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as nonfinal.
- Dugan filed a federal habeas petition and a state motion for absolute discharge, alleging defective warrant and improper extradition; the trial court denied the discharge motion and Dugan appealed that denial to the Court of Appeals.
- While the appeal and federal habeas action were pending, the trial proceeded; Dugan was convicted, sentenced as a habitual criminal, and committed.
- Dugan voluntarily dismissed his interlocutory appeal from the denial of absolute discharge; his direct appeal of conviction failed; he then filed state habeas corpus claiming the conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while his interlocutory appeals were pending.
- The district court dismissed the habeas petition, concluding the interlocutory appeals were from nonfinal orders that did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dugan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction because Dugan’s interlocutory appeal from denial of absolute discharge divested the trial court | The interlocutory appeal was perfected and divested the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent conviction void | The denial of discharge was not a final order; appeal was not perfected, so trial court retained jurisdiction | Held: Denial was not final; appeal not perfected; trial court retained jurisdiction |
| Whether a motion alleging unlawful arrest/extradition is equivalent to a statutory speedy-trial discharge motion for finality purposes | Such defects deprived court of power to try him; denial should be final and immediately appealable | Illegality of arrest/extradition does not impair court’s power to try; remedies are collateral (suppression or §1983) | Held: Arrest/extradition claims are collateral and do not confer a right not to be tried; not final |
| Whether interlocutory appeal from denial of bail reduction divested trial court jurisdiction | Bail-appeal divested jurisdiction | Denial of bail reduction was nonfinal; Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction | Held: Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over that interlocutory appeal; trial court retained jurisdiction |
| Whether habeas is proper to attack conviction as void for lack of jurisdiction | Conviction void because trial court acted while divested | Conviction not void; habeas unavailable because judgment is not void | Held: Habeas relief denied—judgment not void |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (Neb. 1998) (discussed on interlocutory-appeal finality)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2009) (motion for absolute discharge on statutory speedy-trial grounds is final and appealable)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (Neb. 2005) (denial of a motion styled as discharge based on statute-of-limitations defense held nonfinal)
- State v. Masat, 239 Neb. 849 (Neb. 1992) (illegal arrest does not prevent trial; remedies are collateral)
- State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 (Neb. 1991) (arrest/extradition illegality does not impair court’s power to try defendant)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146 (Neb. 2002) (standard: habeas attacks limited to void judgments; appellate review is legal question)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (Neb. 2017) (appeal not perfected unless appealed from a final order or judgment)