O'Neal v. State
290 Neb. 943
| Neb. | 2015Background
- In 1997 O’Neal pled no contest to three counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of use of a deadly weapon; five sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
- After a dismissed first direct appeal and a successful postconviction claim of ineffective assistance, O’Neal obtained a new direct appeal; the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions and adjusted some sentences.
- In August 2013 O’Neal filed a pro se habeas petition in Douglas County seeking discharge as to counts I and II, alleging the information named the wrong victim (Edward vs. Allen Duncan); he did not attach his commitment order.
- The State responded, arguing the Douglas County court lacked jurisdiction because O’Neal was confined in Lincoln (Lancaster County) and also noted the missing commitment order; the district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction but alternatively rejected relief on the merits.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court transferred the appeal to its docket, addressed jurisdictional questions (venue vs. jurisdiction; statutory commitment copy), and affirmed denial of habeas relief on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction because the petition was filed in a county other than where O’Neal was confined | O’Neal filed in Douglas County; implied that court could hear habeas | State: habeas must be filed in county of confinement; Douglas County lacked jurisdiction | Filing outside county of confinement is a venue issue, not jurisdiction; district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and State waived venue objection by not timely raising it |
| Whether failure to attach the commitment order to the petition deprived the court of jurisdiction | O’Neal filed without commitment order (no direct argument on jur.) | State: statutory requirement is jurisdictional and prevents court action | Failure to attach commitment order is not jurisdictional and does not prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction |
| Whether the alleged defect in the information (wrong victim name) entitled O’Neal to habeas relief / discharge | O’Neal: misidentification rendered imprisonment equivalent to detention for crimes that never occurred, violating due process | State: error at most is a claim of trial error; sentencing court had jurisdiction and the sentence was within power | Habeas in Nebraska is limited; only void judgments are subject to collateral attack. The misidentification did not render the judgment void and does not warrant habeas relief |
| Whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction requires reversal when alternative grounds support the result | O’Neal: district court erred in denying petition (procedural error) | State: dismissal correct on jurisdictional or merits grounds | Court: even though district court erred in citing jurisdiction, the dismissal was correct on the merits and is affirmed (proper result may be upheld despite wrong rationale) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916 (2008) (district courts statewide have subject-matter jurisdiction over habeas; venue is separate issue)
- Addison v. Parratt, 204 Neb. 656 (1979) (historically required habeas be filed in county of confinement)
- Gallion v. Zinn, 236 Neb. 98 (1990) (discussed requirement to produce commitment order; did not treat failure as jurisdictional)
- Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 861 (2012) (describes the limited scope of state habeas as a collateral attack; only void judgments are subject to habeas)