Zeleny v. State
298 Neb. 244
Neb.2017Background
- James R. Zeleny was charged in county court with DUI, enhanced for a high alcohol concentration; under a plea agreement the charge was verbally amended to a single first-offense DUI (.15), and Zeleny pled guilty.
- The charging documents were not physically amended (no interlineation or amended information filed); the amendment was made and communicated orally at the plea hearing.
- At the plea hearing the State recited a factual basis indicating Zeleny had been involved in a crash, exhibited signs of intoxication, failed field and preliminary breath tests, and had a blood test showing BAC .297.
- Zeleny filed a motion to arrest judgment in county court, arguing the plea lacked a sufficient factual basis because the information charged a breath-based offense while the factual basis relied on blood evidence; the motion was denied.
- Zeleny then petitioned the district court for a writ of prohibition to restrain the county court from sentencing; the district court denied the writ. Zeleny appealed the denial of the writ to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Zeleny’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying a writ of prohibition to prevent county court sentencing | County court lacked jurisdiction to sentence because plea lacked sufficient factual basis (breath-based charge vs. blood-based facts) | County court had authority to sentence; prohibition is extraordinary and inappropriate where other remedies exist | Denied: writ not warranted — county court’s sentencing was not unauthorized and other remedies (withdraw plea / appeal) exist |
| Whether the county court erred in denying motion to arrest judgment (jurisdictional question for this appeal) | Motion to arrest should have been granted because of defective factual basis | Denial was not before the Supreme Court via this appeal | Not reached — Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review the county court’s motion-to-arrest-judgment denial in this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (explains appellate jurisdictional limits)
- Conkling v. Delany, 167 Neb. 4 (defines modern writ of prohibition and its limits)
- State of Nebraska ex rel. Line v. Kuhlman, 167 Neb. 674 (prohibition is preventative; errors in jurisdictional court do not justify writ)
- State, ex rel. Wright v. Barney, 133 Neb. 676 (treats a writ-action as an "action" for final-judgment purposes)
- Line v. Rouse, 241 Neb. 779 (sets elements required to obtain writ of prohibition)