Zeleny v. State, 298 Neb. 244

James R. Zeleny was charged in county court with DUI enhanced for a .15 breath-alcohol reading; plea agreement reduced charge to first-offense DUI (.15) and a separate hit-and-run count was dismissed.
The county court received a factual basis at plea hearing describing facts and a blood test showing BAC .297; the information was verbally amended at the hearing but not reduced to writing by interlineation nor was an amended information filed.
Zeleny pled guilty to the verbally amended DUI charge. Before sentencing he moved in county court to arrest judgment, arguing the plea lacked a factual basis because the information alleged breath-based measurement while the factual showing referenced blood evidence.
The county court denied the motion to arrest judgment. Zeleny filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in district court to prevent the county court from sentencing him; the district court denied the petition.
Zeleny appealed the denial of the writ of prohibition to the Nebraska Supreme Court (he also attempted to appeal the county court denial, but the Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction over that county-court order).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying a writ of prohibition to prevent county-court sentencing	Zeleny: plea lacked sufficient factual basis because charging instrument alleged breath-based measurement while factual basis showed blood measurement; sentencing should be barred	State: county court had jurisdiction to sentence on the conviction; prohibition is an extraordinary, preventative remedy not warranted for alleged plea insufficiency	Denied — writ inappropriate. County court may sentence; other remedies (withdraw plea or appeal post-sentencing) exist
Whether the Supreme Court may review the county court’s denial of the motion to arrest judgment in this appeal	Zeleny: seeks review of county-court denial	State: only the district-court denial of writ is properly before the Supreme Court	Court lacks jurisdiction over county court order here; only district-court denial of writ is properly before the Supreme Court

Conkling v. Delany, 167 Neb. 4, 91 N.W.2d 250 (Neb. 1958) (defines modern writ of prohibition and its preventative nature)
State of Nebraska ex rel. Line v. Kuhlman, 167 Neb. 674, 94 N.W.2d 373 (Neb. 1959) (explains prohibition is extraordinary and not a remedy for mere error)
Line v. Rouse, 241 Neb. 779, 491 N.W.2d 316 (Neb. 1992) (articulates factors for issuance of prohibition)
State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762, 696 N.W.2d 860 (Neb. 2005) (discusses appellate jurisdiction and final orders)
State, ex rel. Wright v. Barney, 133 Neb. 676, 276 N.W. 676 (Neb. 1937) (treats a petition for writ of prohibition as an action)