State v. Bixby, 971 N.W.2d 120

Bixby was charged with DUI-related offenses and went to trial in October 2018; a mistrial was granted after improper testimony and Bixby filed a plea in bar on Nov. 19, 2018.
The district court denied the plea in bar (Feb. 1, 2019); Bixby filed an interlocutory appeal (Mar. 4, 2019).
The Court of Appeals affirmed; this court denied further review, a mandate issued, and the district court set a new trial for Jan. 26, 2021.
Bixby moved for absolute discharge on speedy-trial grounds on Jan. 20, 2021; the district court calculated excludable time but did not count the 31 days between the plea denial and Bixby’s appeal as excludable, set a deadline of Dec. 29, 2020, and granted discharge.
The State appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the 31 days were excludable because a defendant’s pretrial motion lacks “final disposition” while an interlocutory appeal is pending, so the Jan. 26 trial date was timely and the discharge was premature.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bixby)	Held
Whether the period between district-court denial of a defendant’s pretrial motion and the filing/decision of an interlocutory appeal is excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(a) (i.e., whether the motion had a “final disposition” on denial).	The denial was not a "final disposition" while Bixby pursued an interlocutory appeal, so the entire period from filing until mandate is excludable.	The denial was a final disposition at the district court; the 31-day gap before appeal should count against the State (not be excludable).	Held for the State: when a defendant files an interlocutory appeal, the pretrial motion is not finally disposed for speedy-trial computation until appellate decision; the 31 days are excludable.
Whether the State’s argument about counting the 31 days can be raised on appeal despite not being the focus below.	The State may raise the argument on appeal; the district court addressed § 29-1207(4) and excludable time such that the issue was presented.	Bixby argued the issue was not preserved because State didn’t press it below.	Held for the State: the Court may address the argument because the district court considered § 29-1207(4) and the case posture (State appealed a discharge) did not limit review.

State v. White, 257 Neb. 943, 601 N.W.2d 731 (1999) (holds that interlocutory appellate proceedings can prevent a pretrial motion from having a final disposition for speedy-trial purposes).
State v. Hayes, 10 Neb. App. 833, 639 N.W.2d 418 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002) (Court of Appeals concluded defendant's pretrial motion is not finally determined until appellate decision when appealed).
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (when no appeal is taken, final disposition is the day the trial court rules).
State v. Liming, 306 Neb. 475, 945 N.W.2d 882 (2020) (cited for standard that statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo).
State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (2021) (discusses limits on appellate review when issues were not pressed below).