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 and jury trial for Aug. 9, 2016; Lintz failed to appear for jury selection and a bench warrant issued; State added 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.
On Aug. 11, 2016, Lintz moved for absolute discharge claiming violation of his statutory speedy-trial right (6-month rule); county court denied the motion, finding the delay from his failure to appear was excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
District court affirmed the county court; Lintz appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reviewed whether the county court made the specific findings and computations required when ruling on a motion for absolute discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order denying absolute discharge was final and appealable	Lintz argued the denial was final and appealable because it affected a substantial right	State argued county court order was proper and appeal could be reviewed	Court: denial of motion for absolute discharge is a final, appealable order made during a special proceeding
Whether the county court complied with statutory speedy-trial computation requirements	Lintz argued the 6-month speedy-trial clock expired because excludable periods were not properly computed	State argued delay caused by Lintz's failure to appear was excludable under § 29-1207(4)(d) and trial date within 60 days of reappearance was reasonable	Court: trial court failed to include the specific findings and day-by-day computation required by State v. Williams and § 29-1208; remand required for the computation to be added

State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (requirement that trial court make specific findings and compute excludable periods when ruling on motion for absolute discharge)
State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288, 848 N.W.2d 582 (standard that speedy-trial dismissal rulings are factual questions reviewed for clear error)
State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53, 898 N.W.2d 349 (jurisdictional requirements for appeals and finality under § 25-1902)
State v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241, 570 N.W.2d 326 (holding that denial of motion for absolute discharge affects a substantial right and is appealable)
Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 761 N.W.2d 922 (remand for failure to include required computations or worksheets that facilitate appellate review)