Dugan v. State
297 Neb. 444
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Michael Dugan was arrested in Wyoming under what was believed to be a Nebraska warrant; the warrant was issued after his custody. He waived extradition and was returned to Nebraska and charged with theft by unlawful taking.
- Dugan moved to reduce bail; the trial court denied it and his interlocutory appeal was dismissed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
- While a federal habeas petition and an appeal of the trial court’s denial of a motion for absolute discharge (alleging defective warrant/extradition) were pending, the trial proceeded; Dugan was convicted and later sentenced as a habitual criminal.
- Dugan voluntarily dismissed his interlocutory appeal from the denial of absolute discharge; his direct appeal of conviction failed.
- Dugan then filed a state habeas corpus petition arguing his conviction was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while his interlocutory appeals were pending. The district court dismissed the habeas petition and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dugan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court was divested of jurisdiction while interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to reduce bail was pending | Dugan: pendency of appeal deprived trial court of jurisdiction so conviction is void | State: bail-order appeal was not final; Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction so trial court retained jurisdiction | Court: appeal was not perfected; no jurisdiction transferred; trial court retained jurisdiction (rejected Dugan) |
| Whether denial of motion for absolute discharge (based on alleged unlawful arrest/extradition) was a final, appealable order | Dugan: denial was final and appellate jurisdiction divested trial court | State: denial was not final because motion did not affect a substantial right and did not prevent trial | Court: denial was not a final order; allegations of illegal arrest/extradition do not implicate a right not to be tried; trial court retained jurisdiction (rejected Dugan) |
| Whether allegedly unlawful arrest/extradition can strip trial court of power to try defendant | Dugan: unlawful arrest/extradition invalidated proceedings | State: method of arrest/extradition does not affect court’s power to try accused; remedies are collateral | Court: unlawful arrest/extradition do not impair power to try; remedies are collateral and reviewable on appeal or §1983 actions (rejected Dugan) |
| Whether habeas corpus is proper to collaterally attack the conviction as void | Dugan: conviction void for lack of jurisdiction; habeas available | State: conviction not void; habeas relief improper | Court: habeas relief denied because judgment was not void; interlocutory appeals had not deprived trial court of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kula, 254 Neb. 962, 579 N.W.2d 541 (Neb. 1998) (interlocutory orders and finality analysis in criminal appeals)
- Garza v. Kenney, 264 Neb. 146, 646 N.W.2d 579 (Neb. 2002) (habeas corpus limited to attacks on void judgments and standards of review)
- Bradley v. Hopkins, 246 Neb. 646, 522 N.W.2d 394 (Neb. 1994) (habeas corpus as collateral attack on void convictions)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2009) (speedy-trial absolute discharge rulings affect substantial rights and are appealable)
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762, 696 N.W.2d 860 (Neb. 2005) (substance-over-title rule: a motion styled as discharge may not be final if it does not affect a substantial right)
- State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558, 477 N.W.2d 544 (Neb. 1991) (method of arrest/extradition does not deprive court of jurisdiction to try defendant)