State v. Hernandez, 309 Neb. 299

Information charging Hernandez with possession of methamphetamine filed Jan. 15, 2020; statutory 6‑month speedy‑trial deadline ran to July 15, 2020.
Hernandez released pretrial on condition of participating in a 24/7 Sobriety Program; written plea/arraignment did not specify a court appearance date.
Bench warrant issued Apr. 16, 2020 for failure to participate; record contains no evidence the warrant was served or that the State attempted diligent service.
Hernandez was incarcerated in Iowa Feb. 21–Apr. 3, 2020 and again from June 3, 2020 onward; motion for discharge stated he was expected to complete his Iowa sentence in Jan. 2021.
At the discharge hearing the State presented no evidence and relied on Hernandez’s factual allegations in his motion as judicial admissions; the district court found 114 days excludable under §29‑1207(4)(d) and (a) and denied discharge.
Nebraska Supreme Court held the State failed to meet its burden: Hernandez’s admissions did not establish excludable time for absence/unavailability or for other proceedings, reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State met its burden to prove excluded time when it presented no evidence and relied on Hernandez’s pleadings	State: Hernandez’s written motion contained judicial admissions that the State could use in lieu of evidence	Hernandez: The State failed to present evidence and thus did not prove any statutory exclusion	Court: Judicial admissions may substitute for evidence, but here the admissions did not prove any excludable time; State still failed its burden
Whether §29‑1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) tolled the clock because a bench warrant issued Apr. 16, 2020	State: Issuance of a bench warrant stopped the speedy‑trial clock	Hernandez: Warrant was never served and there was no notice or diligent effort to secure his presence	Court: Warrant issuance alone does not automatically exclude time; notice or diligent efforts to serve (or detainer) required—no evidence of either, so exclusion not proven
Whether §29‑1207(4)(a) ("other proceedings") excludes time of out‑of‑state incarceration	State: Time incarcerated in Iowa constituted "other proceedings" and is excludable	Hernandez: No evidence of pending proceedings in Iowa; incarceration was for serving a sentence, not for an ongoing proceeding	Court: "Proceeding" requires an application to a court (e.g., pending charges/proceedings); mere incarceration to complete a sentence does not establish an excludable proceeding—no exclusion proved

State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (Neb. 2020) (warrant issuance does not automatically toll speedy‑trial time; notice/diligent service required)
State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874, 951 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 2020) (§29‑1207(4)(a) may cover proceedings in other cases, but limits apply)
State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (Neb. 2021) (method for computing statutory speedy‑trial deadline and State's burden)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223, 481 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. 1992) (notice requirement and diligent efforts standard for warrant‑based exclusion)
State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552, 641 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2002) (judicial admissions substitute for evidence)
State v. Tamayo, 280 Neb. 836, 791 N.W.2d 152 (Neb. 2010) (definition of "proceeding" for speedy‑trial exclusion)