State v. Fredrickson

305 Neb. 165, 939 N.W.2d 385
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 28, 2020
DocketS-19-743
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 305 Neb. 165 (State v. Fredrickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Fredrickson, 305 Neb. 165, 939 N.W.2d 385 (Neb. 2020).

Opinion

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/22/2020 08:09 AM CDT

- 165 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 305 Neb. 165

State of Nebraska, appellant, v. Richard A. Fredrickson, appellee. ___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 28, 2020. No. S-19-743.

1. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Determination of a juris- dictional issue which does not involve a factual dispute is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach its conclusions indepen- dent from a trial court. 2. Criminal Law: Right to Counsel: Appeal and Error. A trial court’s determination of a defendant’s indigency, requiring court-appointed counsel for a defendant in a criminal case, will be upheld on appeal, unless the trial court has abused its discretion in such determination. 3. 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. 4. ____: ____. Appellate jurisdiction is the power and authority conferred upon a superior court to reexamine and redetermine causes tried in infe- rior courts. 5. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction. The Nebraska Constitution confers the Nebraska Supreme Court with only “such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law.” 6. Courts: Jurisdiction: Legislature: Appeal and Error. In order to have jurisdiction over an appeal, appellate jurisdiction must be specifically provided by the Legislature. 7. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. An appellate court acquires no juris- diction unless the appellant has satisfied the statutory requirements for appellate jurisdiction. 8. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing from a final order or a judgment. 9. Criminal Law: Judgments: Sentences: Appeal and Error. In a criminal case, the judgment from which the appellant may appeal is the sentence. - 166 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 305 Neb. 165

10. Judgments: Words and Phrases. Every direction of the court made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment is an order. 11. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. In order to be a final order which an appellate court may review, the lower court’s order must (1) affect a substantial right and determine the action and prevent a judgment, (2) affect a substantial right and be made during a special proceeding, (3) affect a substantial right and be made on summary application in an action after a judgment is rendered, or (4) deny a motion for summary judgment which was based on the assertion of sovereign immunity or the immunity of a government official. 12. ____: ____. Whether an order affects a substantial right focuses on whether the right at issue is substantial and whether the court’s order has a substantial impact on that right. 13. Final Orders. Whether an order affects a substantial right depends on whether it affects with finality the rights of the parties in the sub- ject matter. 14. ____. Whether an order affects a substantial right depends on whether the right could otherwise effectively be vindicated. 15. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. An order affects a substantial right when the right would be significantly undermined or irrevocably lost by postponing appellate review.

Appeal from the District Court for Washington County: John E. Samson, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Desirae M. Solomon, Deputy Washington County Attorney, for appellant. David V. Drew, of Drew Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee. Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ. Funke, J. The State of Nebraska, through the Washington County Attorney’s office, appeals the district court’s order finding Richard A. Fredrickson indigent and entitled to court-appointed appellate counsel at the expense of Washington County (the County). The State argues the court abused its discretion because Fredrickson failed to adequately provide his financial situation to the lower court, acquired undisclosed additional - 167 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 305 Neb. 165

funds during the pendency of the underlying action, and had sufficient assets to pay for his legal counsel. Fredrickson, in turn, argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the State’s appeal and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Because the court’s order finding Fredrickson indigent and appointing counsel was neither a judgment nor a final, appealable order, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the State’s appeal. BACKGROUND Fredrickson was charged by amended information with pos- session of a deadly weapon, robbery, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for events occurring on April 11, 2018. At his initial hearing before the county court on April 16, 2018, Fredrickson was advised of his rights, including his right to counsel. In its journal entry and order, the county court stated that Fredrickson was to file a poverty affidavit, that Fredrickson was “adjudged indigent,” and that counsel was appointed to represent Fredrickson at the County’s expense. On the same date, the county court entered a separate order restating its appointment of counsel. Fredrickson never filed the poverty affidavit, and the case was moved to the dis- trict court. In district court, Fredrickson entered a no contest plea to robbery in exchange for the State’s dismissing the remaining counts. The State then filed a motion to determine Fredrickson’s indigent status, noting Fredrickson’s failure to file the poverty affidavit and alleging Fredrickson may have sufficient funds to compensate the County for legal work performed. The State also filed a motion to dispose of property, requesting the sale of Fredrickson’s impounded vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the robbery. The State asked that any funds acquired from such sale be directed by the court to reimburse the County for Fredrickson’s representation. Immediately prior to sentencing, a hearing was held on the State’s two motions. At the hearing, counsel for Fredrickson - 168 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 305 Neb. 165

alleged that although Fredrickson had failed to turn in the affi- davit, he had filled one out. The court instructed Fredrickson to complete a new form with his then-current financial informa- tion. Under this affidavit, Fredrickson averred that his vehicle was worth $9,000, which was the price he had originally paid for it, and that he had a bank account with a $13,000 balance. The affidavit also indicated that Fredrickson was obligated to pay child support in the amount of $100 per month for each of his two children. According to Fredrickson, his savings were being managed by his “power of attorney person” for the con- tinued payment of child support. After Fredrickson provided the completed financial affidavit, the court took up the State’s motion for the sale of Fredrickson’s vehicle. Fredrickson did not object to the vehicle’s sale, and the court ordered that any money derived from the sale of the vehi- cle be applied to court costs and as restitution to the County for any of Fredrickson’s court-appointed attorney fees. The court further ordered that any money received from the sale of the vehicle in excess of the attorney fees be paid to the person holding Fredrickson’s power of attorney and used for payment of child support. In the event the sale of the vehicle produced insufficient funds to cover the court costs and attorney fees, the court denied the State’s request for further reimbursement from Fredrickson’s savings and other available assets.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Conry
2020 ND 247 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Harris
307 Neb. 237 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
305 Neb. 165, 939 N.W.2d 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fredrickson-neb-2020.