State v. Yzeta , 313 Neb. 202 ( 2023 )

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
01/06/2023 09:04 AM CST
- 202 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
Jorge Yzeta, appellant.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed January 6, 2023. No. S-22-346.
1. Judgments: Statutes: Appeal and Error. To the extent an appeal calls
for statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate
court must reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determi-
nation made by the court below.
2. Speedy Trial: Prisoners. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809
(Reissue 2016) provide a procedure by which a Nebraska prison inmate
may assert his or her right to a speedy trial on pending Nebraska
charges.
3. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Before reaching the legal issues
presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine
whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it.
4. Final Orders: Speedy Trial: Appeal and Error. The denial of a speedy
trial claim governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809 (Reissue
2016) is a final, appealable order.
5. Statutes. Statutory interpretation begins with the text, and the text is to
be given its plain and ordinary meaning. A court will not read meaning
into a statute that is not warranted by the legislative language or read
anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of a statute.
6. Statutes: Intent. When interpreting a statute, a court must give effect,
if possible, to all the several parts of a statute and no sentence, clause,
or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can
be avoided.
7. Statutes. Statutes relating to the same subject matter will be construed
so as to maintain a sensible and consistent scheme, giving effect to
every provision.
8. Speedy Trial: Prisoners. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809
(Reissue 2016) apply only to a prisoner in the custody of the Department
of Correctional Services.
- 203 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 2029. Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Appeal and Error. In construing a stat-
ute, an appellate court’s objective is to determine and give effect to the
legislative intent of the enactment.
10. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. Components of a series or collection of
statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter may be conjunctively con-
sidered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature so that
different provisions of an act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.
11. Constitutional Law: Speedy Trial: Statutes. The constitutional right to
a speedy trial and the statutory implementation of that right exist inde-
pendently of each other.
12. Speedy Trial: Prisoners. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809
(Reissue 2016), including the speedy trial provision of § 29-3805, cease
to apply to a criminal defendant when he or she is discharged from the
custody of the Department of Correctional Services.
13. Trial: Appeal and Error. An issue not presented to or decided on by
the trial court is not an appropriate issue for consideration on appeal.
14. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an
analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy
before it.
Appeal from the District Court for Hall County: Patrick M.
Lee, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerard A. Piccolo, Hall County Public Defender, for
appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Kimberly A.
Klein for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Cassel, J.
INTRODUCTION
Jorge Yzeta—relying on the intrastate detainer statutes 1—
appeals from a criminal case order denying relief under the
speedy trial section. 2 This appeal raises a novel legal question:
1
See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809 (Reissue 2016) (intrastate
detainer statutes).
2
See § 29-3805.
- 204 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202Does the 180-day period for trial 3 cease to run after a “person
who is imprisoned in a facility operated by the Department of
Correctional Services” 4 (DCS) is finally discharged—that is,
when he or she is no longer a DCS “prisoner”? 5 Because we
conclude that it does, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Hall County Proceedings Begin
In December 2020, the State filed a complaint in the county
court for Hall County, Nebraska. It charged Yzeta with two
felonies, a misdemeanor, and an infraction.
Yzeta Becomes Inmate and
Requests Disposition
After the county court proceeding commenced, Yzeta began
serving a sentence imposed in Douglas County, Nebraska, for
an unrelated felony offense. Under that sentence, he was com-
mitted to a facility operated by DCS.
On September 27, 2021, while Yzeta was still a prisoner
in a DCS facility, he exercised his statutory right to request a
speedy disposition of the untried Hall County charges. As part
of Yzeta’s request, DCS’ director certified that Yzeta was pres-
ently incarcerated and that his sentence would expire no later
than December 29. 6
Hall County Proceedings
Before DCS Discharge
In a response dated October 13, 2021, the county attorney
acknowledged receipt of Yzeta’s request and accepted tempo-
rary custody of him for an arraignment. The county attorney
filed the corresponding documents in the county court on
3
See id.4
§ 29-3803.
5
§ 29-3804 (“prisoner . . . who is serving a term of imprisonment in any
facility operated by [DCS]”).
6
See § 29-3803(1).
- 205 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202October 14 and 15. Because Yzeta was still in custody on
November 3, he appeared remotely at a hearing on that date.
The county court set a preliminary hearing for December 22.
On December 22, 2021, the two felony charges were bound
over to the district court for trial. The county court dismissed
the other two charges.
A week later, Yzeta finished serving his unrelated sen-
tence. As anticipated, DCS discharged him from custody on
December 29, 2021.
Hall County Proceedings
After DCS Discharge
On January 5, 2022, the State filed an information in the
district court for Hall County. It charged Yzeta with the same
four counts as alleged in the original complaint.
On January 18, 2022, the district court arraigned Yzeta on
the charges in the information. Upon receiving his plea of not
guilty to all the charges, the court set a pretrial conference for
April 4 and a jury trial for May 2.
Yzeta’s Motion to Dismiss
On April 22, 2022, Yzeta filed a motion in the district court
to dismiss his case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the
intrastate detainer statutes. He asserted that (1) he requested
a speedy disposition of the untried charges on September 16,
2021; (2) the county attorney received notice of and accepted
his request no later than October 15; and (3) more than 180
days had passed since October 15. Thus, he requested the court
to dismiss the case due to the State’s failure to bring him to
trial within the statutory 180-day time limit.
The district court heard the motion on May 2, 2022—the
same date on which the trial had been scheduled. The court
heard arguments from both parties and took the matter under
advisement.
District Court’s Order
On May 5, 2022, the court overruled the motion. Its written
order stated two grounds.
- 206 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202First, it concluded that Yzeta was not entitled to relief under
§§ 29-3801 to 29-3809 because he was not a “‘committed
offender’” 7 on the date that he requested the dismissal—April
22, 2022. The court noted that when Yzeta first requested a
speedy disposition of the untried charges, he was commit-
ted to DCS, but that DCS had discharged him on December
29, 2021.
The court explained that under the intrastate detainer stat-
utes, “a defendant must be a ‘committed offender’ at the time
of the requested discharge in order to be eligible for relief.” 8 It
stated: “The Court of Appeals in [State v.] LeFever[ 9] and the
Supreme Court in [State v.] Kolbjornsen[ 10] confirmed this posi-
tion of [State v.] Tucker[ 11] by noting in each opinion language
establishing that each defendant ‘at all relevant times’ was a
‘committed offender.’” The court reasoned that a defendant
who is not covered by §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809 cannot seek
relief under § 29-3805. Instead, the court stated, a defendant
not covered by those statutes has separate speedy trial rights
determined by another statute. 12
Alternatively, the court explained that “even if the rights
pursuant to § 29-3805 somehow permanently attached to an
offender,” a continuance had extended the 180-day time limit.
According to the court, the statutory period began to run on
October 13, 2021—when the county attorney acknowledged
receipt of Yzeta’s request. Thus, the court reasoned, without
any extensions the State needed to try Yzeta by April 11, 2022.
7
See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-170(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) (“[c]ommitted
offender means any person who, under any provision of law, is sentenced
or committed to a facility operated by [DCS] or is sentenced or committed
to [DCS] . . .”).
8
See State v. Tucker, 259 Neb. 225, 609 N.W.2d 306 (2000).
9
State v. LeFever, 30 Neb. App. 562, 970 N.W.2d 792 (2022).
10
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (2016).
11
State v. Tucker, supra note 8.
12
See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1205 to 29-1209 (Reissue 2016) (speedy trial
statutes).
- 207 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202But the court found that there was a “continuance” in the
county court from November 3 to December 22, 2021. Citing
one of our decisions, the court described the continuance as
having been obtained “either by [Yzeta], or by the [p]rosecutor
with the implicit consent of [Yzeta’s] attorney.” 13 This continu-
ance, the court concluded, “extended the time limit for dispo-
sition by 49 days” and “push[ed] the time limit . . . to May
30, 2022.” In the May 5 order, the court stated that the case
“remain[ed] set for jury trial on May 16.” Other than the filing
and disposition of Yzeta’s motion to dismiss, the record does
not explain the delay of the trial from the originally scheduled
date to May 16.
Appeal
On May 6, 2022, Yzeta took an appeal from the district
court’s order. The State filed a petition to bypass review by the
Nebraska Court of Appeals, which we granted. 14
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Yzeta’s sole assignment of error is that the district court
erred in overruling his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdic-
tion pursuant to the intrastate detainer statutes.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] To the extent an appeal calls for statutory interpretation
or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an
independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made
by the court below. 15
ANALYSIS
In Nebraska, there are both constitutional and statutory pro-
tections of a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Our
state’s constitution confers the right to “a speedy public trial by
13
See State v. Kolbjornsen, supra note 10.
14
See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022).
15
State v. Moore, 312 Neb. 263, 978 N.W.2d 327 (2022).
- 208 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202an impartial jury.” 16 The U.S. Constitution does likewise. 17 To
effectuate this right, the Legislature has enacted three statutory
schemes with detailed procedures: the interstate Agreement
on Detainers statutes, 18 the speedy trial statutes, 19 and the
intrastate detainer statutes. 20 These statutory schemes were
originally enacted, respectively, in 1963, 21 1971, 22 and 1984. 23
Each has a different focus. Neither the parties nor the court
below relied on the constitutional provisions or the interstate
Agreement on Detainers statutes. Only the latter two statutory
schemes have potential application here.
[2] We agree with the district court that the crux of this
appeal lies in whether the intrastate detainer statutes applied to
Yzeta after DCS discharged him from custody. The intrastate
detainer statutes provide a procedure by which a Nebraska
prison inmate may assert his or her right to a speedy trial on
pending Nebraska charges. 24
There is no factual dispute. The parties agree that Yzeta was
a Nebraska prison inmate when he requested disposition of the
untried charges. He does not dispute that DCS discharged him
from its custody on December 29, 2021, or that as of that date,
fewer than 180 days had elapsed. Instead, he disputes the legal
significance of that discharge.
16
Neb. Const. art. I, § 11. See State v. Bruns, 181 Neb. 67, 146 N.W.2d 786(1966).
17
See, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101(1972); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S. Ct. 988, 18 L. Ed.
2d 1 (1967).
18
See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-759 to 29-765 (Reissue 2016) (interstate
Agreement on Detainers statutes).
19
See §§ 29-1205 to 29-1209.
20
See §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809.
21
See 1963 Neb. Laws, ch. 154, §§ 1 to 7, pp. 543-52.
22
See 1971 Neb. Laws, L.B. 436.
23
See 1984 Neb. Laws, L.B. 591.
24
See State v. Ebert, 235 Neb. 330, 455 N.W.2d 165 (1990) (citing State v.
Soule, 221 Neb. 619, 379 N.W.2d 762 (1986)).
- 209 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202Jurisdiction
[3,4] Although neither party challenges this court’s juris-
diction, we must briefly consider it. Before reaching the legal
issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate
court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter
before it. 25 We have said that the denial of a speedy trial claim
governed by the intrastate detainer statutes is a final, appeal-
able order. 26
Our recent decision that we lack jurisdiction of an interlocu-
tory appeal from the denial of a motion for discharge based on
constitutional speedy trial grounds 27 has no application here.
Yzeta’s motion was based solely on the intrastate detainer
statutes, as was the district court’s order challenged on appeal.
And Yzeta assigns error only on that basis. We have jurisdic-
tion of this appeal. We turn to the parties’ arguments.
Parties’ Arguments
Yzeta argues that intrastate detainer statutes applied through-
out the proceedings below, because he was imprisoned when he
initially requested a speedy disposition pursuant to § 29-3803.
Even though DCS discharged him on December 29, 2021,
Yzeta contends that § 29-3805 was the “exclusive remedy”
available to him when he moved to dismiss the case on April
22, 2022. 28
The State argues that even if the intrastate detainer statutes
applied to Yzeta during the period in which he was impris-
oned, the intrastate detainer statutes ceased to apply when DCS
discharged him from custody. The State points to the plain
language of § 29-3803 and asserts that Yzeta was no longer
a “person who is imprisoned in a facility operated by [DCS]”
on April 22, 2022, when he filed the motion. The State also
25
State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022).
26
State v. Tucker, supra note 8.
27
See State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. 880, 969 N.W.2d 871 (2022).
28
Brief for appellant at 8, 9 (first citing State v. Ebert, supra note 24, and
then citing State v. Kolbjornsen, supra note 10).
- 210 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202asserts that filing a motion pursuant to § 29-3805 is analogous
to filing a motion for postconviction relief, because “[b]eing
incarcerated is a condition precedent” to obtaining relief. 29
Principles of Statutory Interpretation
[5-7] At this point, we recall familiar principles of statutory
interpretation. Statutory interpretation begins with the text,
and the text is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. A
court will not read meaning into a statute that is not warranted
by the legislative language or read anything plain, direct, or
unambiguous out of a statute. 30 When interpreting a statute, a
court must give effect, if possible, to all the several parts of
a statute and no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected
as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided. 31 Statutes
relating to the same subject matter will be construed so as to
maintain a sensible and consistent scheme, giving effect to
every provision. 32
Focus on Intrastate Detainer Statutes
The intrastate detainer statutes, read together, focus on a
“prisoner” and provide procedures applicable to a “prisoner.”
Each section of these statutes, to the extent it focuses on the
person accused, does so only to the extent that the person is a
“prisoner in the custody” of DCS.
Section 29-3802 requires DCS’ director to “promptly
inform . . . each prisoner in the custody of [DCS]” of any
untried indictment, information, or complaint. (Emphasis sup-
plied.) It also requires the director to inform the prisoner
29
Brief for appellee at 9 (citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(1) (Reissue 2016),
which states that “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence and claiming a
right to be released . . . may file a verified motion, in the court which
imposed such sentence, stating the grounds relied upon and asking the
court to vacate or set aside the sentence” (emphasis supplied)).
30
State v. Space, 312 Neb. 456, 980 N.W.2d 1 (2022).
31
Id.32
State v. Wines, 308 Neb. 468, 954 N.W.2d 893 (2021).
- 211 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202of his or her right to request final disposition of the charge
or charges. 33
Section 29-3803 implicitly defines a prisoner as “[a]ny
person who is imprisoned in a facility operated by [DCS].”
(Emphasis supplied.) That phrase uses the present tense of
“is imprisoned.” 34 This section then authorizes a “prisoner”
to request, via the director, “final disposition of any untried
indictment, information, or complaint pending against him or
her in this state.” 35 It goes on to specify procedures regarding
the “prisoner[’s]” request. 36
Section 29-3804 empowers a prosecutor to “have a pris-
oner, . . . who is serving a term of imprisonment in any facility
operated by [DCS],” made available “in order that speedy and
efficient prosecution may be had.” (Emphasis supplied.) Here
again, the statute uses the present tense of “is serving.” 37
If a prisoner makes the request authorized by § 29-3803,
§ 29-3805, the speedy trial section of the intrastate detainer
statutes, generally provides a 180-day time limit to com-
mence a trial. The first sentence of § 29-3805 requires the
untried indictment, information, or complaint to “be brought
to trial with the prisoner or his or her counsel being present.”
(Emphasis supplied.) This terminology speaks to the status of
the defendant as a “prisoner” at the time of trial. 38 Obviously, if
the person ceases to be a prisoner before being brought to trial
and has not regained that status, he or she cannot be a prisoner
at the time of trial.
Section 29-3806 specifies a prisoner’s status during any
period of temporary custody by the prosecuting jurisdic-
tion prior to a prisoner’s discharge. Under this section, “the
33
See § 29-3802.
34
See § 29-3803.
35
Id. (emphasis supplied).
36
See § 29-3803(1) to (3) (emphasis supplied).
37
See § 29-3804.
38
See § 29-3805.
- 212 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202prisoner shall not be classified as a pretrial detainee but shall
be deemed to remain in custody of [DCS].” 39 It follows that
after discharge by DCS, the person would be either released
from custody or held as a pretrial detainee by the prosecut-
ing jurisdiction subject to posting bail. This section does not
contemplate a person’s being classified as a “prisoner” after
discharge by DCS.
Section 29-3807 voids a “prisoner[’s]” request for disposi-
tion of untried charges if he or she escapes from custody. Read
together with § 29-3806, it seems clear that an escape after
DCS discharges the prisoner—in other words, after he or she
ceases to be a prisoner and becomes only a pretrial detainee—
would not be treated as an escape from DCS.
Finally, § 29-3809 speaks to the costs of transportation of
“prisoners.” It makes no sense to speak of a person who has
been discharged from DCS’ custody as a “prisoner” after the
date of discharge.
[8] Our focus on the plain text leads to one conclusion: The
intrastate detainer statutes apply only to a prisoner in the cus-
tody of DCS. We agree with the State that we cannot disregard
the language used throughout these statutes, which effectively
defines a “prisoner” as “[a] person who is imprisoned in a
facility operated by [DCS].” 40
Yzeta tries to avoid this plain meaning by arguing that the
language defining “prisoner” does not appear in § 29-3805,
which, he argues, means that a defendant need not be incarcer-
ated at the time when he or she files the motion to dismiss.
We disagree.
Yzeta’s argument violates principles of statutory interpreta-
tion, which we recited above. To the extent he argues that we
should disregard the intrastate detainer statutes’ definition of
“prisoner,” he asks us not to read the statutes together or, if
we do, to ignore the definition. This we cannot do. Moreover,
39
§ 29-3806.
40
See § 29-3803.
- 213 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202his argument effectively asserts that between December 29,
2021 (the discharge date), and April 11, 2022 (the date falling
180 days after the county attorney received his request), he
would have been present at trial as a “prisoner,” as that term is
used in § 29-3805. Not so. He ceased to be a “prisoner” under
§ 29-3805 upon the date of discharge.
Yzeta’s opening brief relies upon four of our prior deci-
sions and a prior Court of Appeals’ decision applying the
intrastate detainer statutes. 41 But all of those decisions differ
fundamentally from the situation here. There, the defendants
were prisoners, within the meaning of the intrastate detainer
statutes, at all relevant times. In other words, a continu-
ous period from the time of making (or failing to make) a
request for speedy disposition to and including the time of
filing a motion to dismiss under § 29-3805. Here, the period
of imprisonment stopped upon Yzeta’s discharge. It became
impossible for him to reach 180 days of imprisonment after
making his request.
[9] Yzeta argues that “if the Legislature wanted the one hun-
dred eighty day ‘clock’ to stop, it could say so in the statute.” 42
But in this way, he would have us disregard the words actually
used, because, he contends, the Legislature could have used
other words. In construing a statute, an appellate court’s objec-
tive is to determine and give effect to the legislative intent of
the enactment. 43 The plain language persuades us that in enact-
ing the intrastate detainer statutes, the Legislature intended
to provide a remedy only to persons imprisoned in the cus-
tody of DCS and only during the term of that imprisonment.
Expanding our focus to all of Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes
confirms that conclusion.
41
Brief for appellant at 8 (citing State v. Kolbjornsen, supra note 10; State
v. Tucker, supra note 8; State v. Ebert, supra note 24; State v. Soule, supra
note 24; and State v. LeFever, supra note 9).
42
Brief for appellant at 8.
43
State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503, 900 N.W.2d 745 (2017).
- 214 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202Expanded Focus on All
Speedy Trial Statutes
[10] As we pointed out above, Nebraska has three statu-
tory schemes for the protection of the speedy trial rights of
criminal defendants. Components of a series or collection of
statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter may be conjunc-
tively considered and construed to determine the intent of the
Legislature so that different provisions of an act are consistent,
harmonious, and sensible. 44 We expand our focus to all three
enactments.
[11] The constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statu-
tory implementation of that right exist independently of each
other. 45 Prior to U.S. Supreme Court decisions applying the 6th
Amendment to the states under the Due Process Clause of the
14th Amendment, 46 this court had declared that our state con-
stitutional right to a speedy trial 47 was “self-executing and in
accordance with” the 6th Amendment. 48 We said that “[w]hat is
a fair and reasonable time [for trial] in each particular case is
always in the discretion of the court.” 49
In an evident effort to provide more definitive protection,
the Legislature continued to address the perceived problem.
Through the interstate Agreement on Detainers statutes, it
had already addressed the situation where a prisoner in one
state was the subject of an untried indictment, information, or
complaint in another state. 50 In 1971, it remedied most of the
44
State v. Vanderford, 312 Neb. 580, 980 N.W.2d 397 (2022).
45
State v. Webb, 311 Neb. 694, 974 N.W.2d 317 (2022).
46
See, Barker v. Wingo, supra note 17; Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 90 S.
Ct. 1564, 26 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1970); Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S. Ct.
575, 21 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1969); Klopfer v. North Carolina, supra note 17.
47
See Neb. Const. art. I, § 11.
48
Maher v. State, 144 Neb. 463, 474, 13 N.W.2d 641, 649 (1944).
49
See id. at 475, 13 N.W.2d at 649.
50
See §§ 29-759 to 29-765.
- 215 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202problem by adoption of the speedy trial statutes. 51 Finally, in
1984, the Legislature filled the remaining gap by means of the
intrastate detainer statutes. 52 Construed together, these three
enactments provide a consistent, harmonious, and sensible
statutory protection of the Nebraska and federal constitutional
rights to a speedy trial. We perceive no intent to apply more
than one of these enactments simultaneously to a single indi-
vidual in a single case.
Other states have interpreted similar intrastate detainer stat-
utes to apply only to defendants who remain in the physical
custody of the state. Among other states, Missouri and Kansas
have adopted the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers
Act (UMDDA), on which Nebraska’s intrastate detainer stat-
utes are based. 53
In State ex rel. Haynes v. Bellamy, 54 the Missouri Court of
Appeals held that the UMDDA does not apply to a defendant
who was released from custody and placed on parole during
the 180-day period. The court first examined the plain lan-
guage of the statutes, which referred to confined persons and
inmates. It explained that this language revealed “the assump-
tion that the parties using the statute would be serving their
prison terms before and after the statute was utilized.” 55 The
court held: “‘Once a prisoner is released, his rights regarding
the right to a speedy trial are the same as those of any other
individual.’” 56
51
See §§ 29-1205 to 29-1209.
52
See §§ 29-3801 to 29-3809.
53
See State v. Soule, supra note 24.
54
State ex rel. Haynes v. Bellamy, 747 S.W.2d 189 (Mo. App. 1988).
55
Id. at 190 (emphasis supplied) (citing State v. Thompson, 19 Ohio App. 3d
261, 483 N.E.2d 1207 (1984)).
56
Id. at 190. See, also, State v. Harris, 108 S.W.3d 127, 128 (Mo. App.
2003) (“[o]nce a defendant is released from prison within the 180-day time
limit . . . , he or she loses the benefit of the statute”); State v. Peterson, 30
S.W.3d 209 (Mo. App. 2000).
- 216 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202The Supreme Court of Kansas interpreted the UMDDA
and reached the same conclusion in State v. Julian. 57 Similar
to the circumstances in Bellamy, the defendant was released
from custody and paroled before the running of the 180-day
time limit. The court noted that the UMDDA was “designed to
relieve prisoners of the unfavorable consequences of pending
detainers.” 58 It reasoned that “[n]o adverse consequences flow
to a probationer or a parolee from a detainer” 59 and concluded
that the act no longer applied to the defendant.
[12] We agree with the construction placed on similar intra-
state detainer statutes by the Missouri and Kansas courts. We
hold that the intrastate detainer statutes, including the speedy
trial provision of § 29-3805, cease to apply to a criminal
defend­ant when he or she is discharged from the custody of
DCS. Thus, Nebraska’s intrastate detainer statutes no longer
applied to Yzeta after DCS discharged him from custody.
Definition of “Indictment,
Information, or Complaint”
The State also argues that the intrastate detainer statutes did
not apply to Yzeta because, according to the State, the charges
were not pending against him until an “indictment, informa-
tion, or complaint” was filed in the district court. The State
asserts that Yzeta “jumped the gun by several weeks” 60 when
he first requested a speedy disposition, because the State had
not yet filed the charges “in the court in which they could be
tried.” 61 Thus, the State suggests, his motion was “at least pre-
mature” and “at worst, a nullity.” 62
57
State v. Julian, 244 Kan. 101, 765 P.2d 1104 (1988).
58
Id. at 103, 765 P.2d at 1106.
59
Id. at 105, 765 P.2d at 1107. See, also, State v. Vonbehren, 777 N.W.2d 48(Minn. App. 2010).
60
Brief for appellee at 8-9.
61
Id. at 11.
62
Id. at 8.
- 217 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
313 Nebraska Reports
STATE V. YZETA
Cite as 313 Neb. 202[13,14] Yzeta contends that the State did not raise this argu-
ment below, and we do not find it in the record. An issue not
presented to or decided on by the trial court is not an appropri-
ate issue for consideration on appeal. 63 But regardless, in light
of our resolution of the main issue, we need not address the
State’s additional argument. An appellate court is not obligated
to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the
case and controversy before it. 64
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the speedy trial section of the intrastate
detainer statutes ceased to apply to Yzeta when he was dis-
charged from DCS’ custody. We express no opinion regarding
Yzeta’s status under the speedy trial statutes. We affirm the
district court’s order overruling Yzeta’s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
63
State v. Lessley, 312 Neb. 316, 978 N.W.2d 620 (2022).
64
State v. Moore, supra note 15.