Tyrrell v. Frakes
309 Neb. 85
Neb.2021Background
- Tyrrell was paroled subject to special conditions: no use of online social media and payment of a monthly programming fee; he signed the sex-offender special-conditions form.
- A report and Tyrrell’s admission that he used an online dating site led the Board of Parole to charge parole violations and revoke his parole.
- Over five months after the Board’s revocation order, Tyrrell filed in district court a combined petition in error (challenging the revocation) and an application for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention and the constitutionality of the social-media parole condition.
- The district court quashed the habeas claim (ruling parole revocation is beyond habeas relief under Nebraska law) and later dismissed the petition in error as untimely; Tyrrell appealed after both rulings.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court accepted bypass, held Tyrrell’s appeal timely (because §25‑1315(1) delays appealability when habeas and other claims are joined), but affirmed the quash/dismissal: habeas is not the proper remedy to collaterally attack a nonvoid criminal judgment or to raise a constitutional challenge to a parole condition that was not litigated at revocation or on timely appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Tyrrell's Argument | Frakes/Cotton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was timely / whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over the habeas disposition when habeas and a petition in error were joined | Tyrrell argued his appeal was timely after final district-court action | Defendants argued Tyrrell should have appealed the habeas ruling within 30 days of the quash order | The appeal was timely: when habeas and a petition in error are joined, Neb. Rev. Stat. §25‑1315(1) governs appealability, so the habeas order became appealable only after disposition of the petition in error |
| Whether habeas corpus is an available remedy to challenge the constitutionality of a parole condition after the parolee failed to challenge it at the revocation hearing or by timely appeal/error proceeding | Tyrrell argued the social-media condition is unconstitutional (relying on Packingham) and sought habeas relief to obtain release | Defendants argued habeas is a collateral remedy limited to void judgments and cannot substitute for an appeal or error proceeding | Held that habeas is limited to collateral attacks on void judgments; it cannot be used to raise constitutional challenges to parole conditions after failing to challenge them at revocation or by timely appeal |
| Whether the district court erred in quashing the habeas petition and denying relief | Tyrrell argued the court should have issued or not quashed the writ | Defendants argued parole revocation and conditions are outside habeas relief under Nebraska precedent | Held the district court did not err in quashing the habeas petition; habeas relief was not available for Tyrrell’s claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916 (Neb. 2008) (habeas denial can be a final order; discusses finality test for habeas appeals)
- TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795 (Neb. 2020) (applies §25‑1315 to determine appealability when multiple claims are joined)
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2016) (Nebraska law: habeas is not proper to challenge detention under a final conviction on grounds that underlying statute is unconstitutional)
- Evans v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 253 (Neb. 2016) (review standard and habeas principles in Nebraska)
- Rafert v. Meyer, 298 Neb. 461 (Neb. 2017) (explains final-order requirements and appealability principles)
- Piercy v. Parratt, 202 Neb. 102 (Neb. 1979) (describes habeas as remedy for those detained without legal authority; necessity of void judgment for habeas release)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (U.S. 2017) (U.S. Supreme Court decision on free-speech limits of statutes restricting sex offenders’ access to social-media sites; not a ruling on parole-condition challenges)