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 interlocutory appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (nonfinal order).
- While a federal habeas petition and an appeal of a district-court denial of a motion for absolute discharge 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 conviction and sentence was later affirmed.
- Dugan filed a state habeas corpus petition claiming his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while his interlocutory appeals were pending; the district court dismissed the petition with prejudice.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the denial of the motion for absolute discharge was a final, appealable order that divested the trial court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dugan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction because an interlocutory appeal from denial of a motion to reduce bail was pending | The pending bail appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering subsequent proceedings void | The bail appeal was interlocutory/nonfinal and did not vest appellate jurisdiction, so trial court retained jurisdiction | Court rejected Dugan’s claim; bail appeal never perfected, so no divestiture of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction because an interlocutory appeal from denial of a motion for absolute discharge (alleging unlawful arrest/extradition) was pending | The pending interlocutory appeal of the absolute discharge order divested the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering conviction void | The absolute discharge motion, grounded in alleged unlawful arrest/extradition, did not implicate a right not to be tried and was not a final order; interlocutory appeal did not perfect appellate jurisdiction | Court held the denial was not a final order; allegations of unlawful arrest/extradition do not affect a substantial right that prevents trial, so trial court retained jurisdiction |
| Whether alleged unlawful arrest/extradition can support immediate appellate review as a motion for absolute discharge | Dugan argued the motion should be treated as an absolute discharge claim removing the right to be tried | State argued such claims present collateral remedies (e.g., exclusionary rule, § 1983), not a right not to be tried, so they are not immediately appealable | Court held unlawful arrest/extradition claims are collateral and do not confer immediate appealability as a right not to be tried |
| Whether a judgment is void and thus subject to habeas relief because trial occurred during interlocutory appeals | Dugan asserted the conviction is void and subject to habeas corpus because trial occurred while appeals were pending | State argued appeals were not perfected (nonfinal), so trial court retained jurisdiction and the judgment is not void | Court concluded the judgment is not void; habeas relief was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962, 579 N.W.2d 541 (discussing finality of interlocutory criminal orders)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146, 646 N.W.2d 579 (habeas relief limited to attack on void judgments; appellate review of legal question whether judgment is void)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (denial of motion for absolute discharge based on statutory speedy trial rights is final and appealable)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762, 696 N.W.2d 860 (substance, not title, controls whether a motion affects a substantial right; denial of certain motions to discharge may be nonfinal)