State v. Hernandez
309 Neb. 299
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Information charging Jaime A. Hernandez with possession of methamphetamine filed Jan. 15, 2020; statutory 6‑month trial deadline ran to July 15, 2020.
- Hernandez released pending trial under a 24/7 Sobriety Program condition; written plea/arraignment did not set a return court date.
- Bench warrant issued April 16, 2020 for alleged 24/7 violation; record shows the warrant was never served.
- Hernandez was incarcerated in Iowa twice: Feb. 21–Apr. 3, 2020, and from June 3, 2020 onward; no evidence in the record that Iowa proceedings were pending when the warrant issued.
- On Aug. 4, 2020 Hernandez moved for absolute discharge under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑1207 for violation of his statutory speedy‑trial right; the State presented no evidence at the hearing but relied on Hernandez’s factual allegations in his motion as judicial admissions.
- The district court denied discharge, finding 114 days excludable for defendant’s absence/unavailability and for "other proceedings;" the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and ordered dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State met its burden without presenting evidence by relying on Hernandez’s judicial admissions | State: Hernandez’s factual statements in his motion are judicial admissions and suffice to establish excludable time | Hernandez: Judicial admissions cannot supply the State’s burden to prove an exclusion; State presented no evidence | Court: Judicial admissions can be used, but here they did not establish excludable time; State failed to meet its burden |
| Whether issuance of a bench warrant (April 16) made Hernandez "absent or unavailable" under § 29‑1207(4)(d) so time is excludable | State: The warrant (and defendant’s detention) stopped the speedy‑trial clock | Hernandez: Warrant was never served; no notice or proof the State made diligent efforts to serve it | Court: A warrant alone does not automatically stop the clock; State must show notice or diligent efforts to serve/secure presence; no such proof here, so exclusion not applicable |
| Whether Hernandez’s incarceration in Iowa constituted "other proceedings concerning the defendant" under § 29‑1207(4)(a) | State: Time incarcerated in another jurisdiction should be treated as excludable "other proceedings" | Hernandez: There was no evidence of pending proceedings in Iowa; incarceration appeared to be completion of a sentence, not ongoing proceedings | Court: "Proceeding" requires an application to a court (a more particular meaning); mere incarceration or completed proceedings do not automatically create an exclusion; no evidence of pending proceedings, so exclusion not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (Neb. 2020) (bench warrant does not automatically create excludable absence; notice or diligent service required)
- State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874, 951 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 2020) (§ 29‑1207(4)(a) may apply to proceedings in other jurisdictions but with limits)
- State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (Neb. 2021) (rules for computing statutory speedy‑trial time)
- State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223, 481 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. 1992) (exclusion may require proof that diligent efforts to serve a warrant were made)
- State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552, 641 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2002) (judicial admission defined as substitute for evidence)
- State v. Tamayo, 280 Neb. 836, 791 N.W.2d 152 (Neb. 2010) (definition of "proceeding" for speedy‑trial exclusions)