State v. Hernandez, 309 Neb. 299

Background

Information charging Hernandez with possession of methamphetamine filed Jan. 15, 2020; defendant released on conditions including 24/7 Sobriety.
Written arraignment did not set a specific court appearance date.
Hernandez was incarcerated in Iowa Feb. 21–Apr. 3, 2020, and again beginning June 3, 2020; expected Iowa release Jan. 2021.
A bench warrant was issued April 16, 2020 for failure to participate in 24/7, but the record shows no effort to serve it.
Hernandez moved Aug. 4, 2020 for absolute discharge under the 6‑month statutory speedy‑trial rule; the State presented no evidence at the hearing.
The district court found 114 days excludable (absence/unavailability and other proceedings) and denied discharge; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and directed dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hernandez)	Held
Whether State met its burden to prove excludable time when it presented no evidence at hearing	State claimed Hernandez’s judicial admissions in his motion suffice to prove exclusions	Hernandez argued absence of State evidence meant exclusions were not shown	Court: Judicial admissions can be used, but here they did not establish required exclusions
Whether time is excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) because a bench warrant issued	State relied on bench warrant and asserted it stopped the clock	Hernandez argued warrant was never served and there was no notice or diligent service	Court: Warrant alone does not stop the clock; State must show defendant was notified or that diligent efforts to serve warrant were made — State failed to do so
Whether time is excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(a) (other proceedings) based on incarceration in Iowa	State argued incarceration in another jurisdiction qualified as "other proceedings"	Hernandez argued incarceration alone did not show any pending proceedings that would toll time	Court: "Proceedings" requires an application to a court or similar, not mere incarceration to serve a sentence; no evidence of pending proceedings, so exclusion unavailable
Whether the district court’s denial of absolute discharge was clearly erroneous	State contended admissions and court’s inferences justified denial	Hernandez contended statutory 6‑month period expired without exclusions	Held: District court clearly erred; statutory deadline expired and information must be dismissed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443 (explaining that issuance of a warrant does not automatically toll the speedy‑trial clock absent notice or diligent service)
State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874 (explaining § 29‑1207(4)(a) may cover proceedings in other pending cases but within sensible limits)
State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835 (summarizing speedy‑trial computation and State’s burden to prove exclusions)
State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552 (judicial‑admission principles: pleadings can operate as admissions)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223 (discussing notice requirement before failure to appear can toll speedy‑trial time)
State v. Tamayo, 280 Neb. 836 (definition of "proceeding" for speedy‑trial exclusions)