State v. Bridgeford , 299 Neb. 22 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    05/04/2018 08:10 AM CDT
    - 22 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. BRIDGEFORD
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 22
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Gerard Bridgeford, appellant.
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Judith Bridgeford, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed February 16, 2018.     Nos. S-16-1032, S-16-1035.
    supplemental opinion
    Appeals from the District Court for Saunders County: M ary
    C. Gilbride, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for
    rehearing overruled.
    Jennifer D. Joakim for appellant Gerard Bridgeford.
    Mark A. Steele, of Steele Law Office, for appellant Judith
    Bridgeford.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Siobhan E.
    Duffy for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller‑Lerman, Cassel, Stacy,
    K elch, and Funke, JJ.
    Per Curiam.
    Cases Nos. S‑16‑1032 and S‑16‑1035 are before this court
    on the appellee’s consolidated motion for rehearing concerning
    our opinion in State v. Bridgeford.1 We overrule the motion,
    but we modify the original opinion as follows:
    1
    State v. Bridgeford, 
    298 Neb. 156
    , 
    903 N.W.2d 22
    (2017).
    - 23 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. BRIDGEFORD
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 22
    (1) We withdraw syllabus point 72 and the second to the
    last sentence in the seventh paragraph under the subheading
    “Statutory Right”3 and substitute the following wording in
    both instances:
    The excludable period attributable to an indefinite con-
    tinuance of trial granted by the trial court upon the
    defend­ant’s motion runs from the day of the motion until
    either the defendant’s notice of a request for trial or the
    date set for trial by the court’s own motion.4
    (2) We withdraw the entirety of the 10th paragraph
    under the subheading “Statutory Right”5 and substitute the
    following:
    Judith extended her December 3, 2014, speedy trial
    date when, on August 18, she filed a motion for an
    indefinite continuance of her trial. The period of delay
    attributable to Judith’s motion did not end until the new
    trial date of June 25, 2015, since, despite intervening
    motions, that was the first trial date set after the August
    18, 2014, motion. The new trial date of June 25, 2015,
    exceeded the 6‑month period calculated at the time of
    her motion to continue, which expired on December
    3, 2014.
    (3) We withdraw the entirety of the 11th paragraph
    under the subheading “Statutory Right”6 and substitute the
    following:
    Judith’s indefinite continuance resulted in a trial date
    that exceeded the 6‑month period as calculated with the
    2
    
    Id. at 157,
    903 N.W.2d at 24.
    3
    
    Id. at 163,
    903 N.W.2d at 27.
    4
    See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(a) and (b) (Reissue 2016); State v.
    Wells, 
    277 Neb. 476
    , 
    763 N.W.2d 380
    (2009); State v. Williams, 
    277 Neb. 133
    , 
    761 N.W.2d 514
    (2009) (Wright, J., concurring; Heavican, C.J., and
    Connolly, J., join); State v. Schmader, 
    13 Neb. Ct. App. 321
    , 
    691 N.W.2d 559
          (2005).
    5
    State v. Bridgeford, supra note 
    1, 298 Neb. at 164
    , 903 N.W.2d at 28.
    6
    
    Id. - 24
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. BRIDGEFORD
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 22
    excludable periods up to the date of the motion. Judith
    permanently waived her statutory speedy trial right by
    virtue of the August 18, 2014, motion to continue.
    The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
    Former opinion modified.
    Motion for rehearing overruled.
    Wright, J., not participating in the supplemental opinion.