Opinion ID: 1834520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Court Appearance

Text: This brings us to Bradley's claim that pursuant to § 29-3804, the criminal trial was required to have commenced within 180 days of when he first appeared in county court on June 28, 1988; that is, the act of the prosecutor in causing Bradley to appear before a court started the running of the 180-day clock, notwithstanding the lack of a certificate from the director to the prosecutor. In making that claim, Bradley relies principally on our opinion in State v. Ebert, 235 Neb. 330, 455 N.W.2d 165 (1990). Therein, we affirmed the district court's judgment of conviction against the defendant's claim that he should have been discharged because he had not been tried within the time limit specified in the discharge from custody or recognizance statutes, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1201 et seq. (Reissue 1989). The Ebert court held that as the defendant was incarcerated in Nebraska when the detainer was filed with the department, the matter was controlled not by the discharge from custody or recognizance statutes, but by the act here at issue. In the course of illustrating the methods by which the act's deadline could be invoked, we wrote: These sections [§§ 29-3801 to 29-3809] do not require the prosecutor to file a detainer against any prisoner, but only require that a detainer be filed if the prosecutor elects to seek temporary custody or availability of a prisoner pursuant to § 29-3804. The filing of a detainer is not required in order for a prisoner to assert his or her right to a speedy trial pursuant to § 29-3803. Ebert, 235 Neb. at 335, 455 N.W.2d at 168. Seizing upon the last sentence of the foregoing language, Bradley concludes Ebert means that the act's 180-day clock begins to run as soon as prison officials learn of pending untried charges, even if a formal detainer was not filed and notwithstanding the failure of the director to issue the certificate contemplated by the act. Such a reading is unwarranted. The first sentence of the quoted language does nothing more than explain that the act does not require that a prosecutor ever file a detainer. Only if and when the prosecutor seeks temporary custody or availability of the inmate pursuant to the act must such be done. If such is done, the expediting provisions of § 29-3804 come into play; if no detainer is filed, they do not. The last sentence of the quoted language merely explains that the inmate need not wait for the filing of a detainer, but, rather, may start the running of the 180-day clock by invoking the expediting provisions of § 29-3803. Bradley attempts to bolster his unwarranted reading of the quoted language by pointing out that the Ebert court computed that the defendant had been timely tried, notwithstanding the failure of the record to establish whether the prosecutor had ever received a certificate from the director. But that analysis must be read in light of the facts at issue and the holding in light of those facts. See, Abbott v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 907, 443 N.W.2d 591 (1989), cert. denied 493 U.S. 1073, 110 S.Ct. 1119, 107 L.Ed.2d 1026; Douglas County v. Vinsonhaler, 82 Neb. 810, 118 N.W. 1058 (1908) (language of judicial opinion must be read in context of facts under consideration and its meaning limited by those facts). The Ebert holding reads: The record shows that the defendant was fully aware of the complaint pending against him in Lancaster County, but did not take advantage of the provisions of § 29-3803 to secure disposition of this charge. The prosecutor has no duty to proceed pursuant to § 29-3804, and the defendant was not entitled to be discharged pursuant to § 29-3805. The defendant agreed to be tried on a stipulation of facts and has shown no prejudice resulting from the delayed trial of this matter. 235 Neb. at 335-36, 455 N.W.2d at 169. The computation was made only to dispel any notion that there may have been some basis other than the act on which to claim that the timing of the trial somehow entitled the defendant to be discharged.