State v. Lintz
298 Neb. 103
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Tyler A. Lintz was arrested Feb 5, 2016, and charged by complaint Feb 8, 2016 with third-degree domestic assault (Class I misdemeanor); he requested a jury trial.
- County court set jury selection to begin July 26, 2016, with jury trial on Aug 9; Lintz failed to appear for jury selection and a bench warrant issued; State added a misdemeanor failure-to-appear charge.
- Lintz surrendered July 28, 2016, waived jury trial that day, and the county court scheduled a bench trial for Sept 22, 2016.
- Lintz filed a motion for absolute discharge on Aug 11, 2016, claiming statutory speedy-trial violation; county court denied the motion, reasoning Lintz’s failure to appear tolled the speedy-trial clock under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
- District court affirmed the county court; Lintz appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lintz’s statutory 6‑month speedy‑trial period expired before trial | Lintz: Delay exceeded statutory 6 months; he is entitled to absolute discharge | State: Lintz’s failure to appear triggered an excludable tolling period; subsequent trial date was the next reasonably available date | Court: Remanded — trial court’s denial cannot be reviewed because it failed to make the Williams‑required computation of excludable periods |
| Whether the county court’s order denying absolute discharge was final and appealable | Lintz: Order affects substantial right and is appealable | State: (implicit) order is appealable as a ruling during a special proceeding | Court: Order was final and appealable, so appellate jurisdiction exists |
| What findings are required when denying a motion for absolute discharge under § 29‑1208 | Lintz: Trial court must state specific dates, nature, and lengths of each excludable period and remaining days | State: County court provided reasoning that failure to appear tolled time and rescheduling within 60 days was reasonable | Court: Trial court must include the specific Williams calculation listing each excludable period’s start/end, length, and remaining days for appellate review |
| Remedy when required Williams findings are omitted | Lintz: Remand for dismissal or for required findings | State: Remand for clarification suffices | Court: Reverse and remand to district court with directions to remand to county court to enter the Williams‑required specific findings; parties may then file new appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (2009) (trial courts must specify dates, nature, and lengths of each excludable period and remaining days when ruling on motion for absolute discharge)
- State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 (2014) (speedy‑trial dismissal determinations are factual and reviewed for clear error)
- State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53 (jurisdiction requires a final order; appellate court must confirm jurisdiction)
- State v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241 (ruling on motion for absolute discharge alleging speedy‑trial violation is a final, appealable order)
- Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301 (remand required where trial court omitted required worksheet/calculation necessary for meaningful appellate review)