State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103

Tyler A. Lintz was arrested Feb 5, 2016 and charged by complaint on 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 and trial for August 9, 2016. Lintz failed to appear for jury selection; court issued a bench warrant and the State added a misdemeanor failure-to-appear charge.
Lintz surrendered July 28, 2016, waived his jury trial that same day, and the county court scheduled a bench trial for Sept 22, 2016.
On Aug 11, 2016 Lintz filed a motion for absolute discharge claiming statutory speedy-trial violation (6-month rule). The county court denied the motion, excluding the period from Lintz’s failure to appear until his reappearance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
The district court affirmed the county court. Lintz appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded for the county court to provide the specific excludable-period computations required by State v. Williams.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the county court erred by denying motion for absolute discharge for statutory speedy-trial violation (6-month clock)	Lintz argued the 6-month speedy-trial period expired before trial because the court set trial beyond six months and the court could not rely on his failure to appear to extend the clock without a specific computation	State argued Lintz’s failure to appear made the time between his absence and the next reasonably available trial date excludable under § 29-1207(4)(d), and the rescheduled trial was within the next reasonably available date	Court reversed and remanded: trial court’s order lacked the Williams-required specific findings and day-by-day computation of excludable periods; order must be amended to include those calculations for meaningful appellate review

State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (requires trial courts to make specific findings and day-count computations for excludable periods when ruling on motions for absolute discharge)
State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 (trial court’s dismissal-on-speedy-trial grounds reviewed for clear error)
State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53 (finality and appellate jurisdiction principles)
State v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241 (ruling on motion for absolute discharge based on nonfrivolous speedy-trial claim is final and appealable)
Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301 (remand for missing required court calculations/worksheet)