State v. Irish, 298 Neb. 61

In March 2015, Bryant L. Irish was convicted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,198 of causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence (Class IIIA felony).
At sentencing the court imposed 60 months probation with 180 days jail and orally stated Irish could apply for an ignition interlock permit after 45 days of no driving; the written judgment revoked his license for 10 years but said nothing about interlock eligibility.
Irish appealed the conviction on sufficiency grounds; the conviction was affirmed in January 2016.
In August and November 2016 Irish sought (1) a nunc pro tunc correction and (2) modification/clarification of his probation to effectuate the court’s oral promise about interlock eligibility; both motions were denied.
The district court concluded it lacked authority to shorten the statutorily required license revocation because § 60-6,198 mandates license revocation as part of the judgment (not as a probation condition), and Irish had not timely appealed the sentence within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court could modify probation to reduce the statutorily required license revocation under § 60-6,198	Irish: § 29-2263(3) allows modification of probation conditions, so the court could reduce the revocation period or otherwise permit interlock use	State/District Court: § 60-6,198 mandates the revocation as part of the judgment ("shall" language), so it is punishment, not a probation condition, and cannot be altered via probation modification	Court held the revocation is a mandatory part of the judgment, not a probation term, so the court lacked authority to modify it via a probation motion
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Irish’s post-judgment motions	Irish: his post-judgment motion could cure the discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written order	State: Irish failed to perfect a direct appeal of the sentence within 30 days, and the judgment (the sentence) is final for appeal purposes	Court held Irish’s challenge was untimely; because he did not appeal within 30 days, the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the sentence and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the untimely challenge

State v. Hense, 276 Neb. 313 (Neb. 2008) (holding mandatory license revocation must be imposed as part of the sentence and is not discretionary)
State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260 (Neb. 1996) (15-year revocation is part of punishment; statutory mechanisms allowing later reduction can violate separation of powers)
State v. Donner, 13 Neb. App. 85 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004) (license revocation is a term of punishment, not probation, so revocation can coexist with a shorter probation period)
State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53 (Neb. 2017) (statutory interpretation and sentencing authority principles cited)
Dugan v. State, 297 Neb. 444 (Neb. 2017) (reiterating that in criminal cases the judgment is the sentence for purposes of appeal timing)