State v. Nelson

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

State v. Nelson

Case Number
S-22-0082
Call Date
November 30, 2022
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Adams
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-22-0082 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Brent Nelson (Appellant)

Appeal from the District Court for Adams County, Judge Terri S. Harder

Attorneys: T. Charles James (Langvardt Valle & James for Appellant) and Stacy M. Foust (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee).

Criminal: Speedy Trial

Proceedings below: Appellant’s motion for absolute discharge pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207 was overruled.  On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered that this case be removed from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals and transferred to its docket. 

Issues: On appeal, Appellant makes the following assignments of error:  1) The District Court erred in its decision to deny the Motion for Absolute Discharge finding that speedy trial had not run because it failed to consider the court’s previous ruling on the record. A) The District Court erred when it failed to consider the District Court's previous ruling concerning speedy trial time as a result of the State's Motion for Continuance filed April 15, 2021; 2) The District Court erred when it found there were excluded time periods under 29-1207 because it failed to make specific findings concerning the court’s previous ruling on speedy trial; 3) The District Court erred in determining “That it was not too late for the State to present evidence regarding their basis for its motion for continuance” because it failed to consider the stipulation of the parties or previous record of proceedings. A) The District Court erred by failing to consider the stipulation of the parties as it related to the District Court's earlier ruling on speedy trial on the record and in receiving Exhibits 3 and 4 over Appellant's objection; 4) The District Court erred by setting a trial date outside of the 6-month speedy trial time without seeking consent of the Appellant; and 5) The District Court erred in adopting the State’s calculation of speedy trial and finding an excludable time period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207 in its calculation of speedy trial.  A) The District Court erred in determining there was an excludable time period of 42 days under 29-1207(4)(c)(i), (c)(ii), and (f) because it was premised on the false notion that the State filed a praecipe for transcript to "prepare" and "use" at the suppression hearing before any Motion to Suppress was filed.  

Schedule Code
SC