State v. Bridgeford

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
03/09/2018 12:13 AM CST
- 22 -
Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
299 Nebraska R eports
STATE v. BRIDGEFORD
Cite as 299 Neb. 22
State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
Gerard Bridgeford, appellant.
State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
Judith Bridgeford, appellant.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed February 16, 2018. Nos. S-16-1032, S-16-1035.
supplemental opinion
Appeals from the District Court for Saunders County: M ary
C. Gilbride, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for
rehearing overruled.
Jennifer D. Joakim for appellant Gerard Bridgeford.
Mark A. Steele, of Steele Law Office, for appellant Judith
Bridgeford.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Siobhan E.
Duffy for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller‑Lerman, Cassel, Stacy,
K elch, and Funke, JJ.
Per Curiam.
Cases Nos. S‑16‑1032 and S‑16‑1035 are before this court
on the appellee’s consolidated motion for rehearing concerning
our opinion in State v. Bridgeford.1 We overrule the motion,
but we modify the original opinion as follows:
1
State v. Bridgeford, 298 Neb. 156, 903 N.W.2d 22 (2017).
- 23 -
Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
299 Nebraska R eports
STATE v. BRIDGEFORD
Cite as 299 Neb. 22
(1) We withdraw syllabus point 72 and the second to the
last sentence in the seventh paragraph under the subheading
“Statutory Right”3 and substitute the following wording in
both instances:
The excludable period attributable to an indefinite con-
tinuance of trial granted by the trial court upon the
defend­ant’s motion runs from the day of the motion until
either the defendant’s notice of a request for trial or the
date set for trial by the court’s own motion.4
(2) We withdraw the entirety of the 10th paragraph
under the subheading “Statutory Right”5 and substitute the
following:
Judith extended her December 3, 2014, speedy trial
date when, on August 18, she filed a motion for an
indefinite continuance of her trial. The period of delay
attributable to Judith’s motion did not end until the new
trial date of June 25, 2015, since, despite intervening
motions, that was the first trial date set after the August
18, 2014, motion. The new trial date of June 25, 2015,
exceeded the 6‑month period calculated at the time of
her motion to continue, which expired on December
3, 2014.
(3) We withdraw the entirety of the 11th paragraph
under the subheading “Statutory Right”6 and substitute the
following:
Judith’s indefinite continuance resulted in a trial date
that exceeded the 6‑month period as calculated with the
2
Id. at 157, 903 N.W.2d at 24.
3
Id. at 163, 903 N.W.2d at 27.
4
See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(a) and (b) (Reissue 2016); State v.
Wells, 277 Neb. 476, 763 N.W.2d 380 (2009); State v. Williams, 277 Neb.
133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (Wright, J., concurring; Heavican, C.J., and
Connolly, J., join); State v. Schmader, 13 Neb. Ct. App. 321, 691 N.W.2d 559
(2005).
5
State v. Bridgeford, supra note 1, 298 Neb. at 164, 903 N.W.2d at 28.
6
Id.
- 24 -
Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
299 Nebraska R eports
STATE v. BRIDGEFORD
Cite as 299 Neb. 22
excludable periods up to the date of the motion. Judith
permanently waived her statutory speedy trial right by
virtue of the August 18, 2014, motion to continue.
The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
Former opinion modified.
Motion for rehearing overruled.
Wright, J., not participating in the supplemental opinion.