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). The statute mandates a driver prohibition and license revocation of 60 days to 15 years as part of the judgment of conviction.
At sentencing the court placed Irish on 60 months’ probation, ordered 180 days jail, revoked his license for 10 years, and orally suggested eligibility for an ignition interlock permit after 45 days of no driving; the written judgment did not include interlock eligibility.
Irish appealed the sufficiency of the evidence; the conviction was affirmed in January 2016. He did not appeal the sentence within 30 days.
In August and November 2016 Irish moved to correct/modify his sentence and to amend probation so his license revocation could be shortened or interlock eligibility recognized; the district court denied relief, concluding it lacked authority to alter the statutorily mandated revocation.
The Supreme Court considered whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify the license revocation by motion to modify probation and whether the revocation was a term of probation or a mandatory part of the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentencing court could modify the license revocation by amending probation under § 29-2263(3)	Irish argued § 29-2263(3) allows modification or elimination of probation conditions, so the court could reduce the revocation period or permit interlock use	State argued the § 60-6,198 revocation is mandatory part of the judgment (not a probation condition) and thus not subject to modification via probation proceedings	Held: The revocation is a mandatory part of the judgment under § 60-6,198 and not a probation term; the court lacked authority to modify it via a probation modification motion
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to entertain Irish’s post-sentencing motion to modify sentence	Irish argued the court retained authority to modify probation conditions at any time and thus could correct the sentencing error	State argued Irish failed to timely appeal the sentence (judgment) within 30 days, so the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the judgment via probation proceedings	Held: Because Irish did not perfect a timely appeal (judgment = sentence), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely challenge; appeal dismissed

State v. Hense, 276 Neb. 313, 753 N.W.2d 832 (2008) (mandatory license revocation must be imposed as part of sentence and is not discretionary)
State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260, 543 N.W.2d 154 (1996) (15-year DUI revocation is part of punishment; statutory delegation to commute violated separation of powers)
State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610, 521 N.W.2d 913 (1994) (addressing limits on administrative or executive alteration of judicial sentence)
Shasta Linen Supply v. Applied Underwriters, 290 Neb. 640, 861 N.W.2d 425 (2015) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction if lower court lacked jurisdiction)
Dugan v. State, 297 Neb. 444, 900 N.W.2d 528 (2017) (in criminal cases the judgment is the sentence for appeal-timing purposes)