State v. Hauser, A-21-638

Lancaster County charged Desmond Hauser with multiple offenses; county filed a detainer and the Lancaster County Attorney received the DOC detainer notice on December 7, 2020, which triggered the 180-day statutory clock under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3801–29-3809.
Hauser was uncooperative at early county-court arraignments; county court continued arraignments so it could determine whether he validly waived counsel.
A detainer-driven preliminary hearing was continued when standby counsel had an urgent medical emergency; the preliminary hearing was continued from Feb 26 to Mar 30, 2021.
In district court Hauser repeatedly said he did not understand the charges; the court ordered a competency evaluation (April 14), later found him competent (May 11), and appointed standby counsel after a voluntary waiver of counsel.
On August 2, 2021 Hauser moved for absolute discharge claiming the 180-day detainer period had expired (deadline June 5, 2021). The district court excluded 67 days for good cause (8 + 32 + 27) and concluded the State had until August 11, 2021 to try Hauser; it overruled the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statutory 180-day detainer period elapsed because of continuances caused by Hauser's refusal to answer arraignment questions	Hauser: refusal was exercise of right to self-representation and should not be counted against him	State: refusal prevented court from determining valid waiver; continuance for that reason is good cause	Exclusion proper; 8 days excluded
Whether continuance for standby counsel's medical emergency is excludable	Hauser: standby counsel cannot control case; he objected and continuance improperly lengthened the clock	State: standby counsel was appointed to assist pro se defendant; medical emergency is good cause	Exclusion proper; 32 days excluded
Whether competency evaluation and delay are excludable	Hauser: evaluation not warranted; he asserted competency	State: Hauser’s statements raised bona fide doubts; due process requires competency determination	Exclusion proper; 27 days excluded
Whether the court should address Hauser’s constitutional speedy-trial claim on appeal	Hauser: constitutional right violated	State: Hauser raised only statutory claim in district court; constitutional claim not preserved and such orders are not immediately appealable	Court did not consider constitutional claim; only statutory claim addressed and affirmed

State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (2016) (interpreting Nebraska intrastate detainer speedy-trial statutes and good-cause exclusions)
Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC v. UniFirst Corp., 310 Neb. 896, 970 N.W.2d 72 (2022) (appellate courts won’t consider issues raised first on appeal)
State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. 880 (2022) (orders overruling constitutional-speedy-trial discharge motions are not immediately appealable)
State v. Warlick, 308 Neb. 656, 956 N.W.2d 269 (2021) (standards for waiver of counsel and self-representation)
State v. Gunther, 278 Neb. 173, 768 N.W.2d 453 (2009) (trial court discretion to appoint standby counsel for pro se defendants)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant’s right to self-representation and role of standby counsel)
State v. Griffin, 20 Neb. App. 348, 823 N.W.2d 471 (2012) (competency determinations and due process concerns)