Dugan v. State, 297 Neb. 444

Michael Dugan was arrested in Wyoming and returned to Nebraska after a waiver of extradition; the Nebraska arrest warrant was issued after he was taken into custody. He was charged with theft by unlawful taking in Cheyenne County.
Dugan filed two pretrial challenges: a motion to reduce excessive bail (appealed to Court of Appeals) and a motion for absolute discharge alleging defective arrest warrant and improper extradition (appealed to Court of Appeals after denial).
The Court of Appeals dismissed Dugan’s bail appeal for lack of jurisdiction as nonfinal. While his federal habeas petition and the two interlocutory appeals were pending, trial proceeded; Dugan was convicted and later sentenced as a habitual criminal.
Dugan voluntarily dismissed the interlocutory appeal of the absolute-discharge denial; his direct appeal from conviction was unsuccessful. He then filed a state habeas corpus action claiming his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the interlocutory appeals were pending.
The district court dismissed the habeas petition, holding the interlocutory appeals were not perfected (nonfinal) and thus did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Dugan appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court lost jurisdiction while interlocutory appeals were pending	Dugan: interlocutory appeals divested trial court of jurisdiction, rendering conviction void	State: appeals were from nonfinal orders and never perfected, so trial court retained jurisdiction	Trial court retained jurisdiction; conviction not void
Whether denial of motion for absolute discharge was a final, appealable order	Dugan: denial affected substantial rights (arrest/extradition claims) and was final	State: motion alleged unlawful arrest/extradition, which do not implicate a right not to be tried and thus are nonfinal	Denial was not final; appeal not perfected
Whether unlawful arrest/extradition bars trial (i.e., a right not to be tried)	Dugan: unlawfulness deprived court of power to try him	State: illegality of arrest/extradition gives only collateral remedies (suppression, §1983), not immunity from trial	Unlawful arrest/extradition do not bar trial; they provide collateral remedies
Whether Kula and related precedent were misapplied in dismissing bail appeal	Dugan: Court of Appeals wrongly relied on State v. Kula to dismiss bail appeal	State: Kula correctly establishes interlocutory nature of bail-denial orders	Court affirmed dismissal; Kula application was correct

State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (Neb. 1998) (interlocutory pretrial orders are not final absent substantial-right analysis)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2009) (ruling on a nonfrivolous statutory speedy-trial absolute-discharge motion is a final order)
State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (Neb. 2005) (substance, not title, controls whether a motion’s denial is final; statute-of-limitations-styled discharge motion was nonfinal)
Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146 (Neb. 2002) (in habeas collateral attack, appellate review is limited to whether the judgment is void)
State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 (Neb. 1991) (unlawful arrest or extradition does not deprive the trial court of power to try an accused)