State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228

John R. Leahy III was serving a Colorado prison sentence when extradited to Nebraska under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers; he remained in Nebraska custody from May 7, 2015. Colorado paroled him on November 28, 2016.
Leahy pleaded no contest in Nebraska to kidnapping and manslaughter (stemming from abandoning Austin Wright, who later died of hypothermia) and to a separate methamphetamine possession-with-intent-to-deliver charge; the State had recommended concurrent sentences under the plea agreement.
A dispute arose at sentencing over credit for time served: whether Leahy should receive credit in Nebraska for time detained in Nebraska prior to Colorado parole.
The district court admitted exhibit 51 (a Colorado DOC time/release letter) over Leahy’s foundation/hearsay and confrontation objections, ruled Leahy was not entitled to credit for time served before Colorado parole, but did grant credit for time after parole.
The district court sentenced Leahy to 24–30 years (kidnapping) and 18–20 years (manslaughter), ordered consecutive to each other and to an 8–10 year methamphetamine sentence; Leahy appealed the credit calculation, admission of exhibit 51, and imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issue	State's Argument	Leahy's Argument	Held
Credit for time served prior to Colorado parole	No credit should be given for Nebraska detention while Leahy was serving a Colorado sentence; credit begins after Colorado parole.	Leahy argued he should receive credit for all time detained in Nebraska awaiting disposition of Nebraska charges, or at least for any days after he would have been paroled in Colorado if not transported.	Court held Leahy is not entitled to credit for time before Colorado parole because custody was attributable to Colorado sentence; credit begins after actual parole date.
Admissibility of exhibit 51 (Colorado DOC letter)	Exhibit was relevant to parole date and credit calculation; admissible at sentencing where rules are relaxed.	Objected on foundation, hearsay, and Confrontation Clause grounds; argued lack of opportunity to cross-examine author.	Court held exhibit 51 admissible for sentencing purposes; Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing and exhibit did not prejudice Leahy.
Consecutive vs concurrent sentences	State recommended concurrent sentences but left to court’s discretion.	Leahy argued consecutive sentences were excessive and court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors (mentality, motivation, degree of violence).	Court held sentencing judge properly considered factors and did not abuse discretion in ordering consecutive sentences.

State v. Baker, 250 Neb. 896, 553 N.W.2d 464 (1996) (holding inmate serving a sentence on unrelated conviction is not entitled to credit on a subsequent unrelated sentence for time spent in custody while continuing the earlier sentence)
State v. McLeaney, 6 Neb. App. 807, 578 N.W.2d 68 (1998) (prisoner transported from another state to face charges not entitled to credit for time served where custody was attributable to out-of-state sentence)
State v. Hunnel, 290 Neb. 1039, 863 N.W.2d 442 (2015) (citing McLeaney approvingly in credit-for-time-served context)
State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557, 772 N.W.2d 559 (2009) (credit for time served is an objective number established by the record; courts should avoid speculative counterfactuals)
State v. Pullens, 281 Neb. 828, 800 N.W.2d 202 (2011) (evidentiary rules are relaxed at sentencing; court may consider relevant information)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599, 774 N.W.2d 190 (2009) (Confrontation Clause does not apply to sentencing proceedings)
State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483, 908 N.W.2d 669 (2018) (appellate review of sentencing examines whether trial court abused discretion in applying relevant factors)
State v. Steele, 300 Neb. 617, 915 N.W.2d 560 (2018) (describing customary sentencing factors and the subjective nature of sentencing judgments)