Tyrrell v. Frakes
309 Neb. 85
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Tyrrell was paroled on convictions for burglary and first-degree sexual assault subject to special conditions: no online social media use and payment of a monthly programming fee. He signed and accepted those conditions.
- A woman met Tyrrell via an online dating site; Tyrrell admitted violating the social-media condition and also failed to pay programming fees. The Board of Parole revoked his parole on December 4, 2018.
- More than five months later Tyrrell filed in district court a combined proceeding styled as a "Petition in Error & Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus," naming Department officials but not the Board in the caption; the court treated the Board as dropped.
- The district court granted defendants’ motion to quash the habeas application (January 13, 2020) and later dismissed the petition in error as untimely (May 29, 2020). Tyrrell appealed; the Supreme Court accepted bypass.
- The Supreme Court held (1) Tyrrell’s appeal was timely because Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1) delays appealability of a habeas order when it is joined with other claims, and (2) habeas corpus is not an available collateral remedy to challenge the constitutionality of a parole condition after the parolee failed to raise that challenge at the revocation hearing or in a timely error proceeding; the district court’s quash and dismissal were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tyrrell) | Defendant's Argument (Frakes/Cotton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness/jurisdiction of habeas appeal when joined with petition in error | Appeal timely because finality rules and statutes governing habeas should allow appeal after resolution of related claims | Habeas denial was final when court quashed it in January and had to be appealed within 30 days | Appeal was timely: § 25-1315(1) applies where habeas is joined with a petition in error, so habeas order became appealable only after disposition of the petition in error; Tyrrell filed within 30 days of that disposition |
| District court jurisdiction over petition in error (untimeliness) | (Tyrrell effectively conceded untimeliness) | Petition in error untimely; court lacked jurisdiction | District court correctly dismissed petition in error for lack of jurisdiction; appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review that portion |
| Availability of habeas to challenge constitutionality of parole condition (after failing to raise earlier) | Social-media condition is unconstitutional (citing Packingham); habeas should remedy detention resulting from enforcement of that condition | Habeas is a collateral remedy limited to void judgments/sentences and cannot substitute for appeal or error proceedings | Habeas is not proper to challenge a parole condition’s constitutionality after failing to raise it at revocation or in a timely appeal; habeas available only to attack void judgments/sentences |
| Whether district court erred in quashing habeas and denying reconsideration/amendment | Court should have issued the writ or allowed amendment/reconsideration | Court properly quashed habeas and denied motions because habeas was not the correct remedy | No error: district court properly quashed the habeas petition and denied motions; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916 (Neb. 2008) (describing finality of orders denying habeas relief and test for appealability)
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374 (Neb. 2016) (habeas is not a proper remedy to challenge constitutionality of statute underlying a final conviction)
- TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795 (Neb. 2020) (§25-1315 governs immediate appealability when multiple claims are joined)
- In re Estate of Marsh, 307 Neb. 893 (Neb. 2020) (appellate courts review questions of law de novo, including jurisdiction)
- Evans v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 253 (Neb. 2016) (standards for appellate review of habeas matters and related principles)
- Piercy v. Parratt, 202 Neb. 102 (Neb. 1979) (historical interpretation of Nebraska’s habeas statute limiting scope to certain detainees)
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (U.S. 2017) (U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a state statute broadly banning registered sex offenders from accessing certain social-media sites violated the First Amendment)