State v. Bixby, 311 Neb. 110

In May 2018 Bixby was charged with DUI, open container, and driving on the shoulder; trial began October 24, 2018 and a mistrial was declared October 30 after improper testimony.
Bixby filed a plea in bar on November 19, 2018; the district court denied it February 1, 2019, and Bixby filed an interlocutory appeal on March 4, 2019.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed on March 3, 2020; the Nebraska Supreme Court denied further review April 29, 2020; the mandate was spread on the district court docket August 26, 2020.
A new trial was set for January 26, 2021. One week before trial, Bixby moved for absolute discharge under Nebraska’s speedy-trial statutes, claiming the State exceeded the 6-month limit.
The district court calculated 615 excludable days but treated the 31-day period between denial of the plea in bar and the filing of the interlocutory appeal as non-excludable, set the deadline at December 29, 2020, and granted discharge on January 21, 2021.
The State appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reversed: the court held the 31-day gap was excludable because a defendant’s pretrial motion is not finally disposed until appellate review is complete, so the January 26, 2021 trial date was timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bixby)	Held
Whether the 31-day period between the district court's denial of a defendant's plea in bar and the filing of the defendant's interlocutory appeal is excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(a)	The time is excludable because a defendant’s pretrial motion lacks a "final disposition" while an appeal is pending, so the period from filing until appellate resolution is excluded.	The district court treated that 31-day gap as non-excludable; Bixby argued the State’s contrary calculation was not raised below and the court’s exclusion calculus was correct.	The Supreme Court held the 31 days are excludable: a defendant’s pretrial motion is not finally disposed for speedy-trial purposes until appellate review is complete; reversing the discharge.
Whether the State may raise the argument on appeal though it was not pressed identically below	The State may raise the statutory-interpretation argument on appeal; it did not concede discharge and properly appealed.	Bixby contended the issue was not preserved because the State did not present this precise argument to the district court.	The Court allowed review: Jennings did not bar the State’s argument here because the State appealed an adverse ruling and did not concede discharge; the issue was sufficiently presented.

State v. Liming, 306 Neb. 475, 945 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2020) (statutory interpretation of speedy-trial provisions)
State v. White, 257 Neb. 943, 601 N.W.2d 731 (Neb. 1999) (timing of when clock restarts after appellate disposition in multi-stage proceedings)
State v. Hayes, 10 Neb. App. 833, 639 N.W.2d 418 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002) (pretrial motion time excluded through appellate mandate)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2009) (excludable time ends on denial/grant where no appeal is taken)
State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (Neb. 2021) (limits on appellate review tied to issues presented below)