State v. Irish, 298 Neb. 61

In March 2015, Bryant L. Irish was convicted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,198 for proximately causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence (Class IIIA felony).
At sentencing the court placed Irish on 60 months probation with 180 days in jail and orally stated he could apply for an ignition interlock permit after 45 days; the written judgment revoked his license for 10 years but said nothing about interlock eligibility.
Irish appealed his conviction on sufficiency grounds; the conviction was upheld in January 2016.
In August and November 2016 Irish moved the sentencing court to correct/modify its order (nunc pro tunc and later by motion to modify probation) to reflect the court’s oral statement and reduce the revocation period so he could obtain an ignition interlock permit; the DMV denied his application because § 60-6,198 does not authorize interlock relief.
The district court denied his motions, concluding it lacked authority to alter the statutory license-revocation term imposed as part of the judgment. Irish appealed the denial of the probation-modification motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could modify probation to reduce a statutorily mandated license revocation under § 60-6,198	Irish: § 29-2263(3) authorizes modification of probation conditions, so the court could reduce the revocation period or otherwise permit interlock relief	State/District Court: § 60-6,198 mandates revocation as part of the judgment ("shall"), so revocation is punishment, not a probation condition; court lacked authority to modify it	Court held license revocation under § 60-6,198 is a mandatory part of the judgment, not a probation term, and cannot be altered via probation-modification motion
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Irish’s motion to modify/clarify after the sentencing judgment	Irish: motion to modify probation was a proper vehicle to seek relief from the court	State: Irish failed to appeal the sentencing judgment within 30 days; the judgment (sentence) is final and appellate jurisdiction was not perfected	Court held Irish’s challenge was untimely; because he did not appeal the judgment within 30 days, the district court lacked jurisdiction to change the sentence and the appeal was dismissed

State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53 (discussing review of questions of law)
State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503 (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
Shasta Linen Supply v. Applied Underwriters, 290 Neb. 640 (appellate court may determine jurisdictional issues)
State v. Irish, 292 Neb. 513 (prior appeal in same case)
State v. Hense, 276 Neb. 313 (mandatory license revocation is part of sentence; no discretion)
State v. Donner, 13 Neb. App. 85 (Court of Appeals: revocation is punishment, not a probation condition)
State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260 (15-year revocation part of punishment; restrictions on commutation/invasion of pardon power)
State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610 (separation-of-powers analysis regarding commutation/Board of Pardons power)
Dugan v. State, 297 Neb. 444 (in criminal cases the judgment is the sentence; appeal timing)
State v. Meints, 291 Neb. 869 (appeal-period authority)
State v. Ruffin, 280 Neb. 611 (appeal-period authority)