State v. Riessland, 310 Neb. 262

Nicole Riessland was charged in Aug. 2019; trial was scheduled for July 20, 2020 (within the 6‑month statutory speedy‑trial period).
Two weeks before trial she filed a statutory motion for discharge under Nebraska’s speedy trial statute; the district court heard the motion and overruled it (order entered Aug. 13, 2020).
The district court found that, as of the date the motion was filed, the last day the State could timely try her was Aug. 10, so resolving the motion pushed trial dates beyond the 6‑month deadline.
The court reset trial for Sept. 21, 2020; Riessland did not appeal the denial of her first motion for discharge.
Riessland filed a second motion for discharge on Sept. 18, 2020; the State argued (via a motion to quash) that her earlier motion permanently waived speedy‑trial rights under State v. Mortensen. The district court agreed and denied the second motion.
Riessland appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which granted bypass review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an unsuccessful motion for statutory discharge permanently waives the defendant's §29‑1207 speedy‑trial right when it causes trial to be continued beyond the 6‑month deadline, absent an appeal of the denial	Riessland: waiver occurs only if the denial is appealed (and affirmed); no appeal here, so no waiver	State: under Mortensen, waiver occurs when the defendant's motion causes trial to be continued past 6 months as measured on the filing date; appeal is not required	Court: a defendant permanently waives statutory speedy‑trial rights when an ultimately unsuccessful motion for discharge results in continuation of a timely trial to a date outside the 6‑month period as calculated on the date the motion was filed; waiver occurred here

State v. Mortensen, 287 Neb. 158, 841 N.W.2d 393 (2014) (motion to discharge can implicitly request a continuance and may effect permanent waiver when it pushes trial past six months)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (trial courts must make specific findings—including days remaining to trial—to facilitate appellate review)
State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103, 902 N.W.2d 683 (2017) (explaining that Williams findings facilitate appellate review)
State v. Beitel, 296 Neb. 781, 895 N.W.2d 710 (2017) (standard of review: speedy‑trial dismissal determinations are factual and reviewed for clear error)
State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (2020) (order denying nonfrivolous motion for absolute discharge is final and appealable)
State v. Rodriguez‑Torres, 275 Neb. 363, 746 N.W.2d 686 (2008) (criminal procedures not authorized by statute are unavailable)
State v. Rice, 214 Neb. 518, 335 N.W.2d 269 (1983) (use of motion to quash recognized in context of subpoenas)