State v. Jackson
291 Neb. 908
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Kena G. Jackson was sentenced June 9, 2004 to 10–15 years with 196 days credit; his mandatory discharge should have been after serving 12.5 years, but he was erroneously discharged November 11, 2013 after serving only 10 years (with credits).
- The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services discovered the error and the State filed a motion in the original criminal docket seeking an arrest and commitment warrant to return Jackson to custody to serve the remaining time.
- The district court, without giving Jackson notice or holding a hearing, granted the State’s motion and issued an arrest and commitment warrant ex parte on June 26, 2014; Jackson was returned to custody and then released on parole.
- Jackson appealed the district court’s arrest-and-commitment order, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and violations of procedural due process and the Sixth Amendment (right to counsel).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the arrest-and-commitment order was a final, appealable order and whether Jackson had an adequate alternative remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the arrest-and-commitment warrant | Jackson: court lacked jurisdiction to reassert custody via warrant after erroneous release | State: court may enforce its original sentence; arrest/commitment was enforcement of existing judgment | Court: jurisdictional challenge does not make order appealable; original sentence remained valid and authorized custody—no jurisdictional defect rendering order final |
| Whether issuing the warrant without notice/hearing (and without counsel) violated Due Process/Sixth Amendment | Jackson: lack of notice/hearing and counsel denied procedural due process and right to counsel | State: warrant proceeding is limited, summary enforcement of a valid judgment, and habeas corpus is available for collateral attack | Court: procedural and counsel claims may be raised in habeas; the warrant order was temporary enforcement and not a final order for direct appeal |
| Whether the arrest-and-commitment order was a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 | Jackson: order was a postjudgment summary application that affected a substantial right and thus was immediately appealable | State: order was a limited enforcement action that did not diminish substantive rights and is not final | Court: the order was a postjudgment summary application but did not affect a substantial right; it was temporary and not final—appeal dismissed |
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal | Jackson: appeals court should hear merits because order affected rights | State: no jurisdiction because no final order; habeas is the proper remedy | Court: no jurisdiction—order is not final or appealable; habeas is adequate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adamson, 194 Neb. 592 (confirmation that sentence is the criminal judgment)
- Big John’s Billiards v. State, 283 Neb. 496 (standards for final orders and appellate jurisdiction)
- State v. Perry, 268 Neb. 179 (postjudgment amended commitment treated as summary application)
- Heathman v. Kenney, 263 Neb. 966 (postjudgment summary application example)
- State v. Schlund, 249 Neb. 173 (disqualification of counsel not a substantial right affecting appealability)
- Dunham v. O’Grady, 137 Neb. 649 (judgment as authority for custody)
- Hawk v. O’Grady, 137 Neb. 639 (habeas relief denied where custody follows valid conviction and sentence)