State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103

Tyler A. Lintz was arrested Feb 5, 2016 and charged 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 Aug 9, 2016; 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 court set a bench trial for Sept 22, 2016.
On Aug 11, 2016, Lintz moved for absolute discharge, alleging statutory speedy-trial violation (6-month rule). County court denied the motion, finding Lintz’s failure to appear excused the intervening time under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
District court affirmed the county court. Lintz appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court challenging denial of absolute discharge under the statutory speedy-trial scheme.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lintz)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Lintz's statutory 6-month speedy-trial right was violated	Trial was set beyond six months from charge without valid excludable periods, so absolute discharge required	Time after Lintz's failure to appear is excludable; rescheduling within 60 days of reappearance was the next reasonably available date	County court’s factual ruling must include Williams computation; remanded for specific findings—appeal reversed and remanded
Whether a failure-to-appear by defendant properly excludes time under § 29-1207(4)(d)	Failure to appear should not necessarily defeat a statutory speedy-trial claim unless properly computed and found	The court may exclude the period between absence and next available trial date caused by defendant’s absence	Court accepted that § 29-1207(4)(d) can apply but required the trial court to make explicit date-by-date findings and day counts to permit review
Whether appellate court had jurisdiction to review denial of absolute discharge	Order denying motion for absolute discharge affects substantial right and is appealable	Same	Nebraska Supreme Court has jurisdiction; the order is final and appealable but must include required factual computation for meaningful review

State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (2009) (trial courts must make specific findings and compute each statutorily excludable period and remaining days under the 6-month rule)
State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 (2014) (speedy-trial dismissal determinations are factual questions reviewed for clear error)
State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53 (2017) (appellate jurisdiction requires a final order affecting a substantial right)
State v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241 (1997) (ruling on motion for absolute discharge is final and appealable)
Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301 (2009) (remand required where trial court failed to include required computation or worksheet)