State v. Leahy, 917 N.W.2d 895

John R. Leahy III was serving a Colorado prison term when transported to Nebraska under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers to face charges arising from the disappearance and death of Austin Wright.
Leahy pled no contest to amended charges of kidnapping and manslaughter (and separately to methamphetamine possession with intent to deliver); the State recommended concurrent sentences under a plea agreement.
While detained in Nebraska from May 7, 2015, Colorado continued to run his Colorado sentence and later paroled Leahy on November 28, 2016.
The district court denied credit on the Nebraska sentences for time served prior to the Colorado parole date, admitted a Colorado DOC time/release document (exhibit 51) over Leahy’s hearsay and foundation objections, and then sentenced Leahy to consecutive terms: 24–30 years (kidnapping), 18–20 years (manslaughter), and 8–10 years (drug conviction) with the Nebraska sentences consecutive to each other and to the Colorado-related term.
Leahy appealed, arguing (1) entitled to credit for all Nebraska pretrial detention, (2) improper admission of exhibit 51 (and Confrontation Clause violation), and (3) sentences excessive because they were ordered consecutive.

Issue	Leahy's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Credit for pretrial custody	Leahy: all time detained in Nebraska awaiting disposition should be credited to Nebraska sentences	State: no credit for time served while Leahy was incarcerated on and accruing credit toward a Colorado sentence until parole	Court: No credit for period before Colorado parole (May 7, 2015–Nov. 28, 2016); credit only after parole because custody was by reason of Colorado sentence until parole
Admission of exhibit 51	Leahy: exhibit lacked foundation, was hearsay, and its use implicated Confrontation Clause	State: exhibit was relevant to sentencing/credit calculation; rules of evidence relaxed at sentencing; Confrontation Clause inapplicable at sentencing	Court: Exhibit properly received; sentencing-phase evidence rules allow it; Confrontation Clause not applicable to sentencing
Consecutive sentences	Leahy: court inadequately weighed mitigating factors (mental condition, motive, level of violence) and should not have imposed consecutive terms	State: sentencing judge considered factors and has discretion to order consecutive sentences despite prosecutor’s recommendation for concurrency	Court: No abuse of discretion; judge considered customary factors and permissibly imposed consecutive sentences

State v. Wills, 285 Neb. 260 (defines standard of appellate review for credit-for-time-served issues)
State v. Baker, 250 Neb. 896 (no credit where defendant was in custody on unrelated sentence)
State v. McLeaney, 6 Neb. App. 807 (defendant serving out-of-state sentence not entitled to Nebraska credit while that sentence ran)
State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557 (credit-for-time-served must be an objective number established by the record)
State v. Pullens, 281 Neb. 828 (evidentiary rules relaxed at sentencing; broader admissibility)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (Confrontation Clause inapplicable at sentencing)
State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483 (appellate standard and factors for evaluating alleged excessive sentences)