State v. McAleese, 971 N.W.2d 328

In 2008 McAleese was convicted of DUI, third offense; he received probation. After probation was revoked in 2010, the county court resentenced him to jail, fines, and a 15-year license revocation.
Nebraska law (§ 60-6,197.01) required the sentencing court to order either vehicle immobilization or installation of an ignition interlock device when certain license revocation criteria were met.
The 2010 sentencing order did not include any § 60-6,197.01 vehicle restriction or ignition interlock requirement. No appeal was taken and the conviction and sentence became final.
Nine years later McAleese moved to reopen the criminal case, vacate the sentencing order, and resentence him to require an ignition interlock for the remainder of the revocation.
The county court denied the motion as beyond its legal authority; the district court (on appeal) affirmed, holding the sentencing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to reopen a final criminal judgment. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	McAleese's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing court may reopen a final criminal judgment years later to vacate and correct the sentence to add an ignition interlock order under § 60-6,197.01	McAleese: the 2010 sentence omitted the statutorily required § 60-6,197.01 order; the court can vacate/correct to impose ignition interlock	State: no statutory procedure authorizes reopening a final criminal judgment; the motion is unauthorized and the court lacks jurisdiction	Court: motion unauthorized; county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to reopen or correct a final sentence; affirmed denial
Whether the omission of a § 60-6,197.01 order rendered the 2010 judgment void (permitting collateral attack)	McAleese: the sentence was void, at least in part, because it failed to comply with the statute	State: omission is an error but does not affect the court’s jurisdiction; judgment is final and not void	Court: omission was erroneous only, not void; judgment remained valid and not subject to collateral attack

State v. Melton, 308 Neb. 159, 953 N.W.2d 246 (2021) (post-judgment motion to modify a nonprobationary sentence is not authorized by criminal procedure)
State v. Dunster, 270 Neb. 773, 707 N.W.2d 412 (2005) (court lacked jurisdiction over a postjudgment motion not statutorily authorized)
State v. Miller, 240 Neb. 297, 481 N.W.2d 580 (1992) (civil-style motions like judgment notwithstanding the verdict are unavailable in criminal proceedings)
State v. Barnes, 303 Neb. 167, 927 N.W.2d 64 (2019) (unauthorized collateral attacks on criminal judgments are not permitted)
Meyer v. Frakes, 294 Neb. 668, 884 N.W.2d 131 (2016) (sentencing errors do not necessarily render a sentence void)
State v. Beyer, 260 Neb. 670, 619 N.W.2d 213 (2000) (finality of criminal judgment when no appeal is taken)
State v. Chojolan, 288 Neb. 760, 851 N.W.2d 661 (2014) (subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed independently)