State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228

John R. Leahy III was serving a Colorado prison term when he was transferred to Nebraska under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers to face charges; he began detention in Nebraska on May 7, 2015.
Nebraska charged Leahy with kidnapping and manslaughter (after a plea to amended counts) and he also pleaded no contest to a separate methamphetamine possession with intent to deliver charge; the State recommended concurrent sentences under the plea agreement.
Facts: Leahy admitted taking Austin Wright on a circuitous car route, covering Wright’s head, leaving him in an isolated area with no transport; Wright’s body was later found and died of hypothermia.
While detained in Nebraska, Colorado paroled Leahy on November 28, 2016; the district court denied credit for time served in Nebraska prior to that parole date but granted credit for time after parole.
Leahy objected to admission of a Colorado Department of Corrections document (exhibit 51) showing the parole date and appealed denial of pre-parole credit, the exhibit’s admission, and the imposition of consecutive sentences.
The district court sentenced Leahy to 24–30 years (kidnapping) and 18–20 years (manslaughter), to be served consecutively and consecutive to an 8–10 year Colorado-related sentence; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Leahy's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Credit for time served in Nebraska before Colorado parole	All time detained in Nebraska awaiting Nebraska proceedings should be credited to Nebraska sentences	No credit for time before Colorado parole because Leahy remained in custody on a Colorado sentence until parole	Denied: no credit before Nov 28, 2016; credit only after parole
Admission of exhibit 51 (DOC parole/support letter)	Exhibit lacked foundation, hearsay, and violated Confrontation Clause	Exhibit was relevant at sentencing where evidentiary rules are relaxed; Confrontation Clause inapplicable to sentencing	Admitted: no error in receiving exhibit 51
Consecutive sentences vs. concurrent (alleged excessiveness)	Sentences excessive; court failed to properly weigh mitigating factors and should have run sentences concurrently	Trial court properly considered sentencing factors and did not abuse discretion in ordering consecutive terms	Affirmed: sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion

State v. Wills, 285 Neb. 260 (discussing appellate review of credit-for-time-served questions)
State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483 (sentencing review: abuse-of-discretion standard and factors to consider)
State v. Baker, 250 Neb. 896 (no credit to unrelated-offense sentence when serving another sentence)
State v. McLeaney, 6 Neb. App. 807 (Prisoner serving another jurisdiction’s sentence not entitled to credit for time in Nebraska)
State v. Hunnel, 290 Neb. 1039 (citing McLeaney with approval on credit issues)
State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557 (credit-for-time-served is an absolute, objective number established by the record)
State v. Pullens, 281 Neb. 828 (rules of evidence are relaxed at sentencing)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (Confrontation Clause inapplicable to sentencing proceedings)
U.S. v. Powell, 650 F.3d 388 (4th Cir.) (Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing)
State v. Vanness, 300 Neb. 159 (trial court has discretion to order consecutive or concurrent sentences)
State v. Gonzalez-Faguaga, 266 Neb. 72 (judge not bound by prosecutor’s plea recommendation)
State v. Steele, 300 Neb. 617 (sentencing appropriateness considers judge’s observations and all circumstances)