State v. Hernandez
309 Neb. 299
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Hernandez was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine on January 15, 2020; arraignment paperwork contained no date requiring his appearance.
- He was released on condition of participating in a 24/7 sobriety program; a bench warrant issued April 16, 2020 for nonparticipation, but the record shows the warrant was never served.
- Hernandez was incarcerated in Iowa twice: Feb 21–Apr 3, 2020, and again from June 3, 2020, with an expected completion in January 2021; the motion and hearing did not show pending Iowa proceedings.
- He moved for absolute discharge under the six‑month statutory speedy trial rule (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑1207); the State presented no evidence at the hearing and relied in part on Hernandez’s pleadings as judicial admissions.
- The district court found 114 days excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) and (4)(a) (other proceedings) and denied discharge; the Supreme Court reversed and ordered dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State met its burden to prove excludable time when it presented no evidence and relied on Hernandez’s pleadings | The State: Hernandez’s statements in his motion are judicial admissions and suffice to establish excludable time | Hernandez: The State failed to prove exclusions; admissions do not establish the statutory grounds | Court: Judicial admissions can substitute for evidence, but here the admissions did not establish either exclusion; reversal |
| Whether issuance of an unserved bench warrant or failure to appear creates an exclusion under § 29‑1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) | The State: The bench warrant (and defendant’s incarceration) stopped the speedy‑trial clock | Hernandez: Warrant was never served, there was no notice or diligent service efforts by the State; thus no exclusion | Court: Warrant issuance alone does not stop the clock; State must show notice or diligent efforts to serve; no evidence of such efforts, so exclusion fails |
| Whether time incarcerated in another jurisdiction is excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(a) (other proceedings) | The State: Incarceration in another jurisdiction constitutes "other proceedings" and is excludable (urging extension of Blocher) | Hernandez: No evidence of pending proceedings in Iowa; incarceration appears to be serving a sentence, not a pending proceeding | Court: "Proceeding" means an application to a court; mere incarceration without proof of pending proceedings is not an automatic exclusion; no evidence here, so exclusion fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (2020) (issuance of a warrant does not automatically create excludable time; State must show notice or diligent efforts to serve)
- State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874, 951 N.W.2d 499 (2020) (§ 29‑1207(4)(a) can apply to proceedings in other pending cases within Nebraska)
- State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (2021) (summary of method for computing speedy‑trial time and State’s burden to prove exclusions)
- State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223, 481 N.W.2d 200 (1992) (period of delay may be excluded where diligent efforts to serve warrant have been tried and failed)
- State v. Tamayo, 280 Neb. 836, 791 N.W.2d 152 (2010) (definition of "proceeding" for speedy‑trial exclusion analysis)
- State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552, 641 N.W.2d 43 (2002) (judicial admissions may substitute for evidence in litigation)