State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103

Tyler A. Lintz was arrested Feb 5, 2016, and charged by complaint with third-degree domestic assault on Feb 8, 2016; he requested a jury trial.
County court set jury selection for July 26, 2016 and jury trial for Aug 9, 2016; Lintz failed to appear for jury selection and a bench warrant issued; State added a failure-to-appear misdemeanor.
Lintz surrendered July 28, 2016, waived his jury trial the same day, and a bench trial was set for Sept 22, 2016.
On Aug 11, 2016 Lintz moved for absolute discharge, claiming violation of his statutory 6-month speedy-trial right; the county court denied the motion, reasoning that Lintz’s failure to appear tolled the speedy-trial clock under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
The district court affirmed the county court. Lintz appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which found the county court’s written order lacked the required itemized computation of excludable periods and remanded for specific findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lintz’s statutory 6-month speedy-trial right was violated	Lintz argued the 6-month clock (as extended only by statutorily excludable periods) expired before trial, entitling him to discharge	State argued Lintz’s failure to appear for jury selection created an excludable delay under § 29-1207(4)(d), and the rescheduled trial date was within the next reasonably available period	Court did not decide merits; remanded because the trial court failed to provide the required itemized computation of excludable periods to allow appellate review
Whether the trial court’s order denying discharge was final and appealable	Lintz treated the county court’s denial as a final, appealable order affecting a substantial right	State did not dispute appealability	Court held the denial of a motion for absolute discharge based on a nonfrivolous speedy-trial claim is final and appealable, but required remand for proper findings

State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (trial courts must make specific findings and compute excludable periods when ruling on motions for absolute discharge)
State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288, 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014) (review of speedy-trial dismissal is factual and affirmed unless clearly erroneous)
State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53, 898 N.W.2d 349 (2017) (appellate courts must confirm jurisdiction before addressing merits)
State v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241, 570 N.W.2d 326 (1997) (ruling on motion for absolute discharge affects a substantial right and is appealable)
Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 761 N.W.2d 922 (2009) (remand required where trial court omitted required calculation that frustrated meaningful appellate review)