Tyrrell v. Frakes, 309 Neb. 85

The Nebraska Board of Parole placed Gregory Tyrrell on parole with special conditions, including a ban on online social media and payment of a monthly programming fee; Tyrrell signed the conditions.
Tyrrell admitted violating the social-media condition and failed to pay fees; the Board revoked his parole on December 4, 2018.
More than 30 days after the revocation, Tyrrell filed in district court a combined petition in error and an application for a writ of habeas corpus (filed May 2019).
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to quash the habeas application (January 13, 2020) and later dismissed the petition in error for lack of jurisdiction (May 29, 2020).
Tyrrell appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered (1) whether the appeal was timely and (2) whether habeas corpus is a proper remedy to challenge the constitutionality of a parole condition after failing to raise it at the revocation hearing or by timely appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / appellate jurisdiction of the habeas order	Tyrrell argued his appeal was timely because the habeas disposition became appealable only after the related petition in error was finally resolved	Frakes & Cotton argued Tyrrell should have appealed within 30 days of the district court’s January order quashing the habeas application	Court held appeal was timely: when habeas is joined with a petition in error, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) applies and the habeas disposition was not appealable until the petition in error was resolved, so Tyrrell’s appeal fell within 30 days of that final action
Proper remedy: use of habeas to challenge constitutionality of parole condition after revocation	Tyrrell argued habeas could be used to challenge the parole condition’s constitutionality (citing Packingham)	Defendants argued habeas is a collateral remedy limited to void convictions/sentences and cannot substitute for an appeal or timely error proceeding	Court held habeas is not available: Nebraska law restricts habeas to collateral attacks on void judgments; a parolee who failed to challenge a condition at revocation or by timely error may not use habeas to raise its constitutionality

Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916, 744 N.W.2d 410 (Neb. 2008) (finality of habeas orders and appealability principles)
Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016) (habeas corpus limitations for collateral attacks on convictions)
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (U.S. 2017) (First Amendment limits on statutes restricting sex offenders’ access to social-media sites; did not address parole-condition context)
Piercy v. Parratt, 202 Neb. 102, 273 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 1979) (interpretation of Nebraska habeas statute and scope)
TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 950 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 2020) (application of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) when multiple claims are joined)
Rafert v. Meyer, 298 Neb. 461, 905 N.W.2d 30 (Neb. 2017) (final-order and appealability principles)