State v. Warner, 863 N.W.2d 196

Warner was charged with two felony counts of theft by deception for writing bad checks on accounts at two different banks.
Warner moved to quash, arguing the offenses should be aggregated into a single count under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(7); the district court sustained the motion to quash but granted the State 7 days to file an amended information and scheduled arraignment on any amended information.
The State did not amend; instead it filed an application for leave to docket an error proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01, which the district court signed and the Court of Appeals accepted; the Nebraska Supreme Court later took the case.
Warner moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction, arguing the April 10 order was not a “final order” as required by § 29-2315.01 because the court allowed amendment and did not dismiss the case.
The Supreme Court concluded the April 10 order was not final (further action was required), so the State’s error proceeding failed for lack of jurisdiction; the appeal was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Warner)	Held
Whether the State may pursue an error proceeding under § 29-2315.01 from an order sustaining a motion to quash but allowing amendment	The April 10 order was appealable under § 29-2315.01 and the State timely filed its application	The April 10 order was not a "final order" because the court allowed amendment and did not dismiss the case	Held: No jurisdiction — the order was not final and § 29-2315.01 requires a final order; appeal dismissed
Whether the April 10 order terminated proceedings (finality test)	The State argued review was needed and could otherwise evade review	Warner argued the order left the prosecution pending and required further action, so it wasn’t final	Held: The order did not terminate the proceeding; further action was required, so it was not final
Whether the court should nonetheless address the merits because the issue could evade review	The State urged the court to decide merits under precedent allowing review when issues might evade review	Warner opposed; court should adhere to statutory jurisdictional limits	Held: Court declined — statutory final-order limit cannot be overridden by evasion-of-review concerns; disapproved the contrary suggestion in State v. Bourke

State v. Penado, 282 Neb. 495 (requirement of strict compliance with § 29-2315.01; finality test)
State v. Wieczorek, 252 Neb. 705 (error proceedings unavailable where order did not dispose of all counts)
Nichols v. Nichols, 288 Neb. 339 (conditional dismissal allowing amendment is not a final judgment)
Dobrusky v. State, 140 Neb. 360 (sustaining motion to quash without dismissal is not a discharge; proceedings remain pending)
State v. Bourke, 237 Neb. 121 (discussed and disapproved to extent it suggested appellate review despite lack of final order)
State v. Figeroa, 278 Neb. 98 (purpose of § 29-2315.01 is to provide authoritative legal exposition)
State v. Smith, 288 Neb. 797 (jurisdictional questions reviewed as matters of law)