State v. McAleese, 311 Neb. 243

In 2008 McAleese was convicted in Adams County of DUI, third offense, and in 2010 after probation revocation he was resentenced to 120 days jail, a $600 fine, and a 15-year license revocation.
Nebraska law in effect required a sentencing court to order either vehicle immobilization or installation of an ignition interlock device for certain DUI convictions; the 2010 sentencing order did not include either restriction.
No direct appeal was taken and the 2010 judgment became final. The statutory omission was not raised at sentencing or on direct appeal.
Nine years later McAleese filed a postjudgment motion asking the county court to reopen the case, vacate the 2010 sentence, and correct it to require an ignition interlock device for the remainder of the revocation.
The county court denied the motion as beyond its legal authority; the district court affirmed on jurisdictional grounds. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted bypass and affirmed the lower courts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing court has jurisdiction to reopen a final criminal judgment 9 years later to vacate and correct sentence to add an ignition interlock order	McAleese: the sentencing order failed to include the mandatory § 60-6,197.01 order and the court should be allowed to correct the sentence	State: no statutory procedure authorizes reopening a final criminal judgment for this purpose; motion is unauthorized and the court lacks jurisdiction	Court: motion was unauthorized; county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; affirmed
Whether the 2010 sentence was void for failure to comply with the ignition interlock statute	McAleese: omission rendered the sentence void, permitting collateral correction	State: omission made the sentence erroneous but not void; it did not divest the court of jurisdiction	Court: sentence was erroneous only, not void; collateral attack was unauthorized

State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021) (postjudgment motion to modify nonprobationary sentence is not an available criminal procedure)
State v. Dunster, 270 Neb. 773, 707 N.W.2d 412 (2005) (court lacked jurisdiction over postjudgment motion not statutorily authorized; collateral attack must be in recognized proceeding)
State v. Barnes, 303 Neb. 167, 927 N.W.2d 64 (2019) (erroneous sentences are not void; unauthorized collateral attacks must be denied)
State v. Miller, 240 Neb. 297, 481 N.W.2d 580 (1992) (procedures available in civil practice may be unauthorized in criminal cases)
State v. Chojolan, 288 Neb. 760, 851 N.W.2d 661 (2014) (subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Meyer v. Frakes, 294 Neb. 668, 884 N.W.2d 131 (2016) (failure to impose sentence within statutory limits is erroneous, not void)