- 103 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LINTZ

Cite as 298 Neb. 103

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Tyler A. Lintz, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed October 27, 2017. No. S-16-1158.

1. Judgments: Speedy Trial: Appeal and Error. As a general rule, a 

trial court’s determination as to whether charges should be dismissed 

on speedy trial grounds is a factual question which will be affirmed on 

appeal unless clearly erroneous.

2. 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, irrespective of 

whether the issue is raised by the parties.

3. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court 

to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered 

by the court from which the appeal is taken.

4. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 

(Reissue 2016), an order is final for purposes of appeal if it affects a 

substantial right and (1) determines the action and prevents a judgment, 

(2) is made during a special proceeding, or (3) is made on summary 

application in an action after judgment is rendered.

5. Speedy Trial. Addressing a claimed denial of statutory speedy trial 

rights in a motion for discharge involves a relatively simple mathematical computation of whether the 6-month speedy trial clock, as extended 

by statutorily excludable periods, has expired prior to the commencement of trial.

6. ____. When ruling on a motion for absolute discharge pursuant to 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1208 (Reissue 2016), the trial court shall make 

specific findings of each period of delay excludable under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 29-1207(4)(a) to (e) (Reissue 2016), in addition to the findings under § 29-1207(4)(f). Such findings shall include the date and 

nature of the proceedings, circumstances, or rulings which initiated 

and concluded each excludable period; the number of days composing 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

11/17/2017 01:11 AM CST
- 104 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LINTZ

Cite as 298 Neb. 103

each excludable period; and the number of days remaining in which 

the defendant may be brought to trial after taking into consideration all 

excludable periods.

Appeal from the District Court for Scotts Bluff County, 

Randall L. Lippstreu, Judge, on appeal thereto from the 

County Court for Scotts Bluff County, James M. Worden, 

Judge. Judgment of District Court reversed, and cause remanded 

with directions.

Darin J. Knepper, Scotts Bluff County Deputy Public 

Defender, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Joe Meyer for 

appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, 

Kelch, and Funke, JJ.

Kelch, J.

INTRODUCTION

Tyler A. Lintz appeals the order of the district court for 

Scotts Bluff County that affirmed the county court’s order 

denying his motion for absolute discharge. Lintz claims a 

violation of his statutory right to speedy trial. We reverse the 

district court’s order and remand the cause to that court with 

directions to remand the matter to the county court with directions to enter an order that incorporates specific findings pursuant to our directive in State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 

N.W.2d 514 (2009).

BACKGROUND

Lintz was arrested on suspicion of domestic assault on 

February 5, 2016. On February 8, the State charged Lintz by 

complaint with third degree domestic assault, a Class I misdemeanor. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-323 (Reissue 2016). Lintz 

requested a jury trial.

The county court scheduled the jury trial for August 9, 

2016, with jury selection to begin 2 weeks earlier on July 
- 105 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LINTZ

Cite as 298 Neb. 103

26. Lintz failed to appear for the scheduled jury selection, 

and the county court ordered a bench warrant. The State 

amended the complaint to add a misdemeanor charge of failure to appear.

Lintz turned himself in on July 28, 2016, and that same day 

waived his right to a jury trial. The county court scheduled a 

bench trial for September 22.

On August 11, 2016, Lintz filed a motion for absolute discharge, alleging his constitutional and statutory rights to a 

speedy trial had been violated. The county court held a hearing on August 16. In a subsequent written order, it considered 

“[w]hether [Lintz’] right to speedy trial was violated when the 

court set the case for trial beyond the six month requirement 

even though [Lintz] failed to appear for jury selection before

the six month requirement had expired.” (Emphasis in original.) The county court reasoned that jury selection is a condition precedent to a jury trial and found that by failing to appear 

for jury selection, Lintz caused a delay in his trial. The county 

court further stated:

Once a defendant has caused a delay due to a failure to appear for court, the time between the defendant’s absence and the next reasonably available trial date 

is excluded. Neb.Rev.Stat. [§] 29-1207(4)(d) [(Reissue 

2016)]. The trial was rescheduled within 60 days. A trial 

date scheduled within six months of the defendant’s reappearance is presumed to be the next reasonably available 

trial date.

The county court denied Lintz’ motion and ordered the case to 

be tried on September 22, as previously scheduled.

Lintz appealed to the district court, asserting only his statutory right to a speedy trial. Based on reasoning similar to the 

county court’s, the district court affirmed.

Lintz now appeals to this court.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Lintz assigns as error the denial of his motion for absolute discharge.
- 106 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LINTZ

Cite as 298 Neb. 103

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] As a general rule, a trial court’s determination as to 

whether charges should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds 

is a factual question which will be affirmed on appeal unless 

clearly erroneous. State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288, 848 N.W.2d 

582 (2014).

ANALYSIS

[2-4] 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, irrespective of whether 

the issue is raised by the parties. State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 

53, 898 N.W.2d 349 (2017). For an appellate court to acquire 

jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final order entered 

by the court from which the appeal is taken. Id. Under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2016), an order is final for purposes of appeal if it affects a substantial right and (1) determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) is made during 

a special proceeding, or (3) is made on summary application 

in an action after judgment is rendered. State v. McColery, 

supra. And we have determined that a ruling on a motion for 

absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated 

is a ruling affecting a substantial right made during a special 

proceeding and is therefore final and appealable. See State 

v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241, 570 N.W.2d 326 (1997). Here, the 

county court’s order denying Lintz’ motion for absolute discharge was final and appealable. However, a final, appealable order is not the only prerequisite for meaningful appellate review.

[5,6] Addressing a claimed denial of statutory speedy trial 

rights in a motion for discharge involves a relatively simple 

mathematical computation of whether the 6-month speedy 

trial clock, as extended by statutorily excludable periods, 

has expired prior to the commencement of trial. See State 

v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009). But in 
- 107 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LINTZ

Cite as 298 Neb. 103

ruling on a motion to discharge, this court unequivocally 

requires specific findings regarding the statutorily excludable periods:

Effective March 9, 2009, when ruling on a motion 

for absolute discharge pursuant to [Neb. Rev. Stat.] 

§ 29-1208 [(Reissue 2016)], the trial court shall make 

specific findings of each period of delay excludable 

under § 29-1207(4)(a) to (e), in addition to the findings 

under § 29-1207(4)(f) . . . . Such findings shall include 

the date and nature of the proceedings, circumstances, or 

rulings which initiated and concluded each excludable 

period; the number of days composing each excludable 

period; and the number of days remaining in which the 

defendant may be brought to trial after taking into consideration all excludable periods.

(Emphasis supplied.) State v. Williams, 277 Neb. at 143-44, 

761 N.W.2d at 524. Therefore, the county court, as part of its 

ruling on Lintz’ motion for absolute discharge, was required 

to set forth the above calculation as part of its findings in 

applying Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d) (Reissue 2016), but 

it did not.

We require this calculation of any excludable days pursuant 

to § 29-1207(4)(d) to facilitate appellate review. See State v. 

Williams, supra. A trial court’s determination as to whether 

charges should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds is a factual question which will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly 

erroneous. See State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288, 848 N.W.2d 

582 (2014). But we cannot review whether the trial court’s 

determination of the facts is erroneous unless such factual 

determination is complete. Certainly, we appreciate the county 

court’s issuing a written order, but without a computation 

as required by State v. Williams, supra, we cannot conduct 

a proper review. Accordingly, the county court’s order must 

be remanded with directions to add the required computation. See Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 761 N.W.2d 

922 (2009) (remanding for failure to include child support 
- 108 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

298 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LINTZ

Cite as 298 Neb. 103

worksheet which was required by our rules and which would 

have facilitated meaningful review). Then, the parties may 

file new appeals from the corrected order. And henceforth, if 

a trial court fails to include the computation as required by 

State v. Williams, supra, in its order on a motion for absolute 

discharge, the appeal will be summarily remanded to the trial 

court so that it can prepare the required computation.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the order of the district court and remand the 

cause to the district court with directions to further remand 

the matter to the county court with directions to enter specific 

findings pursuant to our directive in State v. Williams, supra.

Reversed and remanded with directions.