Zeleny v. State
298 Neb. 244
| Neb. | 2017Background
- James R. Zeleny was charged in county court with DUI enhanced for a .15 breath-alcohol level; plea agreement orally amended the charge to a first-offense DUI (.15) but no written amended information was filed.
- At plea hearing, the factual basis described a blood test showing .297 BAC taken at a hospital after an accident; officer observations and field tests supported impairment.
- Zeleny pled guilty to the orally amended charge; the county court later denied his motion to arrest judgment claiming an inadequate factual basis (breath-based charge vs. blood-based factual basis).
- Zeleny sought 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’s denial of the motion to arrest judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal may include county court's denial of motion to arrest judgment | Zeleny argued the county court erred by denying his motion to arrest judgment | State argued only the district court's denial of the writ is before the Supreme Court | Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the county court order; only the district court's final order denying the writ was properly before the court |
| Whether a writ of prohibition should bar sentencing | Zeleny argued sentencing exceeds county court's power because plea lacked factual basis (breath v. blood discrepancy) | State argued county court has authority to sentence and other remedies exist | Court held prohibition was not warranted: sentencing authority was lawful and other adequate remedies (withdraw plea or appeal) existed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 (2005) (appellate jurisdiction limited to the final order appealed)
- Conkling v. Delany, 167 Neb. 4 (1958) (definition and limits on prohibition writ)
- State of Nebraska ex rel. Line v. Kuhlman, 167 Neb. 674 (1959) (prohibition is preventative; not for mere errors)
- Line v. Rouse, 241 Neb. 779 (1992) (three-part test for issuance of prohibition)
- State, ex rel. Wright v. Barney, 133 Neb. 676 (1937) (motion for writ of prohibition is an action)