State v. Fredrickson, 943 N.W.2d 701

Richard A. Fredrickson was charged with robbery; the county court appointed counsel and later the case was moved to district court where he pleaded no contest and was sentenced.
The State moved to determine indigency and to sell Fredrickson’s impounded vehicle to reimburse the county for appointed counsel; the court ordered the vehicle sold but declined to order further reimbursement from Fredrickson’s savings.
Fredrickson filed a direct appeal and sought appointment of appellate counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); he submitted financial affidavits showing significant prior proceeds from a real-estate sale but claiming limited remaining funds.
The district court appointed appellate counsel at county expense and, on October 15, granted Fredrickson’s application to proceed IFP, relieving him of docket fees and transcript costs.
The State appealed the IFP grant; the Nebraska Supreme Court previously dismissed an interlocutory appeal from the appointment-of-counsel order (Fredrickson I) for lack of jurisdiction and here holds the IFP-grant order is likewise not a final order because it does not affect a substantial right.

Issue	State's Argument	Fredrickson's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals/supreme court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s order granting a criminal defendant permission to proceed IFP on appeal	The IFP grant improperly relieves county of fees despite defendant’s assets; the order should be reviewable	The IFP grant is interlocutory/nonfinal and does not impede the rights to appeal the conviction; IFP does not change perfection of appeal	Lack of jurisdiction; IFP grant is not a final order under § 25-1902 because it does not affect a substantial right
Whether an order granting IFP affects a substantial right such that appellate review must be available immediately	The order effectively obligates the county to pay fees and thus impairs its financial rights	The order does not set a specific payment amount or deadline and the county can later seek reimbursement or challenge indigency under § 29-3908	The order did not affect with finality the county’s rights; substantial right was not irrevocably lost by postponing review
Whether allowing IFP alters perfection of the criminal appeal	The State implies improper IFP may undermine the appeal’s validity	IFP status does not affect the perfection of the criminal appeal if notice and affidavit are timely filed	IFP approval (or its lack) does not divest appellate jurisdiction over the criminal appeal; appeal perfection depends on timely notice and affidavit

Priesner v. Starry, 300 Neb. 81 (2018) (standards for appellate review of in forma pauperis determinations)
State v. Fredrickson, 305 Neb. 165 (2020) (prior Fredrickson decision holding appointment-of-counsel order was not a final, appealable order)
State v. Jones, 264 Neb. 671 (2002) (discussing perfection of in forma pauperis appeals)
Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704 (2004) (treatment of IFP filings and appellate procedure)
In re Claim of Rehm and Faesser, 226 Neb. 107 (1987) (treatment of appeals from fee awards and finality principles)