Opinion ID: 2037158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: effect of restitution hearing on beyer's right to appeal

Text: The State next claims that Beyer may not accept the benefits of the order of the district court and, after doing so, appeal from it. Brief for appellee at 12. The State argues that by participating in the restitution hearing which resulted in a reduction of the amount of restitution, Beyer lost her right to appeal the district court's decision affirming the conviction, and her appeal should be dismissed. However, as previously determined, the county court was without jurisdiction to hold the restitution hearing and enter the order regarding restitution. Beyer could not accept a benefit by participating in a restitution hearing which the county court was without jurisdiction to hold. See State v. Trevino, 251 Neb. 344, 556 N.W.2d 638 (1996) (subject matter jurisdiction may not be created by consent or conduct of parties). Furthermore, Beyer could not accept the benefit of a reduction in the restitution amount when the county court was without jurisdiction to enter such order. The State's contention is without merit.