State v. Sysel, A-17-079

Sysel was charged in Sarpy County with multiple offenses including DUI (amended to a Class IIA felony) and arraigned Nov. 9, 2015; multiple pretrial continuances occurred, several at Sysel's request.
Sysel was incarcerated in Iowa by spring 2016; he filed a pro se April 22, 2016 "motion for speedy trial" but it lacked the inmate-status certificate required by the Agreement on Detainers (AOD/Detainers Act).
A formal detainers-act package (Sysel’s signed request plus the Iowa certificate and offer of temporary custody) was signed/dated June 30–July 1, 2016 and received by Nebraska authorities on July 1, 2016.
Sysel moved for discharge Nov. 8, 2016 claiming violations of the AOD, Nebraska statutory speedy-trial rules, and constitutional speedy-trial rights; the district court denied the motion on Jan. 6, 2017.
On appeal, Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the detainers-act 180-day clock began upon receipt of the complete article III request (July 1), the Nebraska 6‑month statutory rule was not controlling once the AOD was properly invoked, and the Barker balancing test did not show a constitutional violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sysel’s April 2016 pro se filing triggered the AOD 180‑day clock	April 22 pro se filing (and the court’s May 2 docket entry) started the AOD clock; court’s later change was improper and prejudicial	The April filing lacked the required certificate under article III; the AOD clock began when the complete request (with certificate) was received July 1	Court held the AOD clock began July 1; April filing was insufficient to trigger article III timing
Whether Nebraska’s 6‑month statutory speedy‑trial rule (§ 29‑1207 et seq.) applied	Sysel argued statutory 6‑month rule supported discharge	State argued once AOD was invoked, AOD controls timing, not § 29‑1207	Court held AOD controls here; Nebraska 6‑month rule did not apply once detainers act was properly invoked
Whether Sysel’s Sixth Amendment/Nebraska constitutional speedy‑trial rights were violated	Sysel argued delay (from original charging/continuances and detention in Iowa) violated constitutional right and prejudiced defense	State argued many delays were due to Sysel’s continuances/unavailability, the AOD request was timely, and no actual prejudice shown	Applying Barker factors (length, reason, assertion, prejudice), court held constitutional right not violated

State v. Rieger, 270 Neb. 904 (interpreting article III receipt rule and AOD timing)
State v. Reynolds, 218 Neb. 753 (requiring both written notice and inmate-status certificate to trigger AOD 180‑day period)
State v. Nearhood, 2 Neb. App. 915 (holding failure to include inmate-status certificate defeats article III demand)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144 (court may correct factual findings before final judgment)
State v. Tucker, 259 Neb. 225 (distinguishing dispositional statutes for in‑state inmates from § 29‑1207)
State v. Steele, 261 Neb. 541 (circumstances when § 29‑1207, not AOD, governs extradited defendants)
State v. Betancourt‑Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (articulating Barker balancing for Nebraska constitutional speedy‑trial claims)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four‑part balancing test for constitutional speedy trial claims)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (allocation of responsibility for delay between government and defendant)