State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443

On March 29, 2017, Chapman was charged in Hall County by complaint with misdemeanor theft; an arraignment was set for April 12, 2017.
Chapman failed to appear at the April 12 arraignment and the county court issued an arrest warrant the same day.
Chapman was not arrested until April 24, 2019 (over two years later); he pleaded not guilty the next day and moved for absolute discharge under Nebraska’s speedy-trial statutes on July 1, 2019.
The county court denied the motion as "frivolous," finding the period while the arrest warrant was pending was excluded from the 6‑month speedy‑trial clock; the district court affirmed that ruling (but rejected the ‘‘frivolous’’ label).
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the State failed to prove any statutory exclusion applied (no evidence of diligent efforts to serve the warrant or that Chapman received notice), concluded the 6‑month period expired (last day Sept. 29, 2017), and ordered absolute discharge and dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the period the arrest warrant was pending is excluded from the 6‑month speedy‑trial calculation under § 29‑1207(4)(d)	State: warrant pendency shows defendant was "absent/unavailable," so time excluded	Chapman: warrant pendency is not excluded absent proof of diligent service efforts or of valid notice	Court: exclusion requires proof (per Richter) of diligent efforts to secure presence; State failed to prove that, so no exclusion
Whether the State proved Chapman received notice of the April 12, 2017 arraignment (or otherwise justified exclusion)	State: record may permit remand for factual findings on notice	Chapman: no competent evidence of service or actual notice in the record	Court: no competent evidence of notice; remand unnecessary because record cannot support a contrary factual finding
Whether denial of discharge was final and appealable	State: county court called motion frivolous (would affect appealability)	Chapman: motion was nonfrivolous and meritorious	Court: denial of a nonfrivolous motion for absolute discharge is final and appealable; here motion was meritorious

State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844 (standard of review for dismissal on speedy‑trial grounds)
State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852 (order denying nonfrivolous motion for absolute discharge is final and appealable)
State v. Stevens, 189 Neb. 487 (speedy‑trial statutes apply to prosecutions by complaint in county court)
State v. Schanaman, 286 Neb. 125 (discussing application of Stevens and statutory scope)
State v. Lebeau, 280 Neb. 238 (method for computing the 6‑month speedy‑trial period)
State v. Liming, 306 Neb. 475 (scope of excluded periods and § 29‑1208 discharge remedy)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (burden on the State to prove excluded time by a preponderance of the evidence)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223 (arrest‑warrant pendency excludes time only if State shows diligent efforts to serve the defendant)
State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103 (discussing when remand for additional factual findings is required)