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

John R. Leahy III, serving a Colorado sentence, was transported to Nebraska under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers to face charges arising from the death of Austin Wright; Leahy pleaded no contest to amended counts of kidnapping and manslaughter (and separately pleaded to a methamphetamine-possession-with-intent-to-deliver charge).
Leahy was detained in Hitchcock County, Nebraska, beginning May 7, 2015; Colorado paroled him on November 28, 2016.
The PSR and sentencing proceedings raised a dispute over credit for time served in Nebraska while Leahy was still serving his Colorado sentence.
The district court admitted as evidence a Colorado Department of Corrections document (exhibit 51) confirming the November 28, 2016 parole date, over Leahy’s hearsay and foundation objections.
The court ruled Leahy was not entitled to credit for time in custody from May 7, 2015, through November 28, 2016 (because his Colorado sentence was still running), awarded credit only for time served after parole, and imposed consecutive sentences: 24–30 years (kidnapping), 18–20 years (manslaughter), consecutive to each other and to an 8–10 year meth sentence.
Leahy appealed denial of pre-parole credit, admissibility of exhibit 51, and the imposition of consecutive sentences; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in all respects.

Issue	Leahy's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Entitlement to credit for time served in Nebraska pre-11/28/2016	Leahy: all time detained in Nebraska awaiting trial/sentencing should be credited to Nebraska sentences	State: no credit while Leahy was serving a Colorado sentence; credit begins only after Colorado sentence stopped running (parole)	Court: No credit for period while Colorado sentence was running; credit only after parole (11/28/2016)
Admissibility of exhibit 51 (Colorado DOC release record)	Leahy: exhibit lacked foundation, was hearsay, and implicated Confrontation Clause	State: exhibit relevant to sentencing/credit; sentencing-phase evidence rules are relaxed	Court: Exhibit properly received for sentencing/credit purpose; Confrontation Clause inapplicable to sentencing
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentences	Leahy: consecutive terms excessive; court failed to weigh mitigating factors (mentality, motive, degree of violence)	State: sentencing court considered factors and acted within discretion	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered customary factors and permissibly ordered consecutive sentences

State v. Baker, 250 Neb. 896 (1996) (defendant serving sentence on unrelated conviction is not entitled to credit for time served on separate charges)
State v. McLeaney, 6 Neb. App. 807 (1998) (prisoner serving out-of-state sentence transported for prosecution not entitled to credit in Nebraska while original sentence runs)
State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557 (2009) (credit-for-time-served is an objective number established by the record)
State v. Pullens, 281 Neb. 828 (2011) (evidentiary rules are relaxed at sentencing; court may consider relevant material)
State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599 (2009) (Confrontation Clause inapplicable to sentencing proceedings)
State v. Wills, 285 Neb. 260 (2013) (entitlement and calculation of credit for time served are questions of law reviewable de novo)
State v. Hunnel, 290 Neb. 1039 (2015) (citing McLeaney approvingly on credit-for-time-served issues)
State v. Russell, 299 Neb. 483 (2018) (standard for reviewing alleged excessive sentences)
State v. Steele, 300 Neb. 617 (2018) (description of sentencing considerations and judge's discretion)
State v. Vanness, 300 Neb. 159 (2018) (trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)
State v. Gonzalez-Faguaga, 266 Neb. 72 (2003) (prosecutor's recommendation in plea agreement does not bind the sentencing judge)