Tyrrell v. Frakes
309 Neb. 85
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Tyrrell was paroled after convictions for burglary and first-degree sexual assault subject to special conditions, including no use of online social media and payment of a monthly programming fee.
- A report that Tyrrell used an online dating site led him to admit violating the social-media condition; the Board revoked his parole on December 4, 2018.
- Months later Tyrrell filed a district-court action that, after amendment, combined a petition in error challenging the revocation and an application for a writ of habeas corpus; the Board was ultimately dropped as a named party.
- The district court quashed the habeas application on January 13, 2020, and later dismissed the petition in error as untimely on May 29, 2020; Tyrrell appealed on June 5, 2020 and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted bypass.
- The State argued the habeas disposition was a final order requiring an appeal within 30 days; Tyrrell argued the combined proceedings affected finality and challenged the constitutional validity of the parole condition via habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / appealability of habeas disposition | Tyrrell argued his appeal was timely because the habeas claim was joined with a petition in error | State argued the habeas order was final and appealable 30 days after quash | Held: Appeal was timely—§ 25-1315(1) applies when habeas and petition in error are joined, so appealability was delayed until disposition of the petition in error |
| Applicability of § 25-1315(1) to habeas joined with other claims | Tyrrell relied on combined-proceeding finality to delay appeal deadline | State relied on Anderson v. Houston treating habeas denial as final | Held: § 25-1315(1) governs where habeas and petition in error are filed together; order disposing of habeas was not appealable until petition in error resolved |
| Jurisdiction over the petition in error (timeliness of petition in error) | Tyrrell did not contest untimeliness of petition in error | State and district court asserted lack of jurisdiction because petition in error was filed after the 30-day limit | Held: District court correctly dismissed petition in error as untimely; appellate court therefore lacks jurisdiction over those assignments |
| Proper remedy to challenge constitutionality of a parole condition after revocation | Tyrrell argued habeas could be used to challenge the parole condition as unconstitutional | Frakes/Cotton argued habeas is a collateral remedy limited to void judgments and cannot substitute for an appeal or timely error proceeding | Held: Habeas is not available to challenge a parole condition’s constitutionality when the parolee failed to raise the issue in the revocation hearing or a timely error proceeding; district court properly quashed the habeas application |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916, 744 N.W.2d 410 (Neb. 2008) (an order denying habeas relief qualifies as a final order; test of finality focuses on whether particular proceeding was terminated)
- TDP Phase One v. The Club at the Yard, 307 Neb. 795, 950 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 2020) (§ 25-1315 governs immediate appealability when a claim subject to a special statute is joined with other claims)
- Sanders v. Frakes, 295 Neb. 374, 888 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2016) (habeas is not a proper remedy to challenge a final conviction or sentence on the basis that the underlying statute is unconstitutional)
- Rafert v. Meyer, 298 Neb. 461, 905 N.W.2d 30 (Neb. 2017) (discusses final-order requirements for appealability)
- Piercy v. Parratt, 202 Neb. 102, 273 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 1979) (reiterates that habeas relief requires the judgment, sentence, and commitment be void)