State v. Jedlicka, 938 N.W.2d 854

Parris R. Jedlicka pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and was sentenced to 2 years of Specialized Substance Abuse Supervision probation.
Probation conditions included (1) refrain from violating any laws, and (9) not use or possess controlled substances and submit to chemical tests on request.
Eight months later Jedlicka was arrested in Platte County and charged with possession of methamphetamine; the State filed an information to revoke probation alleging a law violation (condition 1), not the drug-use/possession condition (condition 9).
Jedlicka moved to quash, arguing § 29-2267(3) forbids revocation for a "substance abuse" violation absent 90 days of cumulative custodial sanctions, and she contended possession qualifies as a substance-abuse violation under § 29-2266(5).
The district court granted the motion to quash, concluding possession was a substance-abuse violation; the State appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted the State's exception and considered whether a new felony possession charge is a "substance abuse . . . violation" triggering § 29-2267(3)'s 90-day prerequisite.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a new criminal possession charge constitutes a "substance abuse violation" under § 29-2267(3), thereby requiring 90 days of cumulative custodial sanctions before revocation proceedings	State: A felony possession charge is a law violation and not a § 29-2266(5) "substance abuse" violation; revocation may proceed without 90 days served	Jedlicka: § 29-2266(5) defines "substance abuse violation" as activities "associated with the use" (including positive urinalysis), and possession is necessarily associated with use, so the 90-day rule applies	Court: Possession of a controlled substance for a new felony is not a § 29-2266(5) substance-abuse violation for § 29-2267(3) purposes; quash was erroneous; remand for further proceedings (jeopardy had not attached)

State v. Brye, 304 Neb. 498, 935 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 2019) (statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 295 Neb. 170, 887 N.W.2d 296 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review of statutory questions)
Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938, 902 N.W.2d 147 (Neb. 2017) (definitions limited to specified statutes control only as specified)
State v. Ralios, 301 Neb. 1027, 921 N.W.2d 362 (Neb. 2019) (statutory construction authorities)
Lagos v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018) (noscitur a sociis and interpreting words by their company)
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) (interpretation of the phrase "associated with" in statutory context)
State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857, 911 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2018) (jeopardy and appellate effect under § 29-2316)
State v. Manjikian, 303 Neb. 100, 927 N.W.2d 48 (Neb. 2019) (when jeopardy attaches in bench trials)