Dugan v. State
297 Neb. 444
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael Marvin Dugan was arrested in Wyoming and extradited to Nebraska; he was charged with theft by unlawful taking and later convicted and sentenced as a habitual criminal.
- Dugan filed (1) a pretrial motion to reduce excessive bail (denied) and appealed to the Court of Appeals (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as nonfinal), and (2) a motion for absolute discharge claiming defective arrest warrant and improper extradition (denied) and appealed to the Court of Appeals while trial proceeded.
- Trial occurred while Dugan’s federal habeas petition and his interlocutory appeal from the denial of absolute discharge were pending; he was convicted and sentenced before the absolute-discharge appeal was dismissed as interlocutory by stipulation.
- On direct appeal Dugan challenged the arrest and extradition; the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that method of arrest/extradition does not strip a court of power to try an accused.
- Dugan then filed a state habeas corpus petition claiming his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction during the pendency of his interlocutory appeals; the district court dismissed the petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dugan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was divested of jurisdiction by Dugan’s interlocutory appeal from denial of motion to reduce bail | The pending bail appeal deprived trial court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent trial void | Bail-appeal was not from a final order; Court of Appeals never acquired jurisdiction, so trial court retained jurisdiction | Appeal was not perfected; Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction; trial court retained jurisdiction; claim fails |
| Whether trial court was divested of jurisdiction by Dugan’s interlocutory appeal from denial of motion for absolute discharge alleging unlawful arrest/extradition | The pending absolute-discharge appeal was final and divested trial court of jurisdiction, rendering conviction void | Denial was not a final order because motion challenged unlawful arrest/extradition (not speedy-trial right); therefore appeal was interlocutory and did not divest jurisdiction | Denial was not final: unlawful arrest/extradition claims do not affect a right not to be tried; trial court retained jurisdiction; conviction not void |
| Whether motion labeled "absolute discharge" based on arrest/extradition should be treated as statutory speedy-trial discharge for finality purposes | Title and relief confer finality; appealed order should be immediately reviewable | Substance controls; only statutory speedy-trial discharge motions are final because they implicate a right not to be tried | Substance controls; motion here did not involve statutory speedy-trial calculations and was not final |
| Appropriate remedy for unlawful arrest/extradition claims raised pretrial | Absolute discharge (dismissal) and prevention of trial | Claims yield collateral remedies (suppression, §1983, appeal) but do not bar trial | Unlawful arrest/extradition may provide collateral remedies; do not deprive trial court of power to try defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962 (discussed regarding finality of pretrial orders)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (holding that denial of statutory speedy-trial discharge is a final, appealable order)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (denial of motion styled as discharge on statute-of-limitations grounds was not final)
- State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 (arrest/extradition defects do not deprive court of power to try accused)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146 (standard: habeas attacks limited to void judgments)