State v. McAleese

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s determination that the county court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Andrew McAleese’s postjudgment motion seeking to vacate and correct his sentence. The court held that no recognized criminal procedure authorized reopening a final criminal judgment nine years after sentencing to correct an alleged failure to impose an ignition-interlock restriction. The alleged sentencing error did not render the judgment void.

Holdings

1. A sentencing court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate an unauthorized postjudgment motion seeking to reopen a criminal case and vacate or modify a sentence after the judgment has become final, because Nebraska criminal procedure statutes provide no recognized procedure authorizing that relief.
2. The sentencing court's failure to impose the statutory vehicle restriction did not render the sentence or criminal judgment void because the court had jurisdiction over McAleese and the DUI offense, and the alleged error concerned only the sentence's compliance with a statutory requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Nebraska sentencing court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider an unauthorized postjudgment motion filed years after a criminal judgment became final to reopen the case, vacate the sentence, and correct an alleged sentencing error.
2. Whether the failure to impose a vehicle restriction required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,197.01 rendered McAleese's sentence or criminal judgment void and subject to collateral attack.

Disposition

affirmed