Supreme Court decision raises concerns about people being ‘backed’ into county jails • Nebraska Auditor

LINCOLN – A decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday is raising concerns that some criminals may be forced to return to the county jail to spend more days behind bars.

Some officials said it would be an expensive effort for counties and could further increase overcrowding in local jails, but one prosecutor said the impact would be limited.

In a rare 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court ruled Friday that county jail inmates must serve 15 days on each separate conviction before any “good time” reductions are applied to their sentences.

Many counties, including at least Lancaster and Hall counties, now count good time (a reduction in fines for good behavior), contrary to Friday’s decision. They read state law as meaning inmates must serve 15 days throughout their entire prison sentence; This likely includes several separate convictions.

This results in shorter prison stays compared to serving 15 days of so-called “hard time” for each conviction.

Lancaster County Public Defender Kristi Egger called the decision “short-sighted” because it did not explain how county jails should respond to the decision. If that means some defendants have to return to jail for a few more days, it could lead to increased overcrowding in county jails like Lancaster County, Egger said.

Egger cited a sharp dissenting opinion written by retired Chief Justice Mike Heavican; Heavican wrote that it required a majority “Sisyphean attempt” to conclude that state law required him to spend 15 days behind bars for each count before having a good time.

“If significant work needs to be done to discover whether a law is clear, that law is probably unclear,” Heavican wrote.

He said that when a statute is ambiguous, the “rule of mercy” requires that a decision be made in favor of the defendant.

‘Apples and oranges’

The lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court said Monday he doubted whether Friday’s ruling would require anyone to be “pulled back to prison”; Like a decade ago when the state corrections department miscalculated the release dates of dozens of inmates. many will return to prison.

Travis Rodak, who argued the case on behalf of Box Butte County, said Friday’s case and what happened in the state prison system in 2014 was like comparing “apples to oranges.”

“I don’t see this affecting the majority of existing cases,” Rodak said.

First of all, he said, there aren’t many criminals who serve consecutive sentences for two completely different crimes. It is more common for offenders to serve concurrent sentences, and such concurrent sentences will not be affected by Friday’s ruling.

Kearney County Prosecutor Melanie Bellamy, president of the state county attorneys association, said in an email that she was glad the Supreme Court clarified the good time issue, adding that it would be up to everyone to decide. Mullins v. individual county “working with local courts and law enforcement” to comply with the Box Butte decision.

Longtime Hall County Public Defender Gerald Piccolo said he expects his county, based on the Supreme Court decision, to explore sending some people back to jail to complete extra days they have not served. But he added that if he were running the prison he wouldn’t do so because of the expense of tracking down and housing these people.

The case argued before the Supreme Court involved Samuel Mullins, now 35, who pleaded no contest to charges of resisting arrest in December 2022 and subsequent charges of domestic assault in January 2023. These were two separate misdemeanor crimes.

In Box Butte County, state law has been interpreted to mean that two separate crimes require two separate 15-day sentences before time reductions can be applied.

District’s comment appealed

Bell Island, the defense attorney representing Mullins, objected to the county’s interpretation as incorrect. The Nebraska Defense Lawyers Association, represented by Lincoln attorney Spike Eickholt, joined the lawsuit, arguing that the 15-day waiting period should apply to the “total sum of all sentences.”

Friday’s unsigned majority opinion agreed with the arguments Rodak made; Rodak said “common sense, legislative intent, and public policy appear to dictate that convictions for separate crimes should be separate unless served simultaneously by the Court.” and independent penalty calculations.

The court majority concluded that this was unnecessary “relying on legislative materials such as committee reports or floor debates” and “examining such legislative materials” to determine whether state law regarding county jail good time calculation is unclear because the statutory language appears clear.

This led to a dispute with Heavican, who is retired as of Oct. 31, and a separate dissent written by Judge Jonathan Papik and signed by Judge Stephanie Stacy.

Egger, the Lancaster County public defender, said the decision does a “disservice” by failing to look at legislative debates and lawmakers’ efforts to standardize criminal penalties statewide.

“At a time when prisons are full and the cost of housing people in custody is rising, and it is clear that the Legislature is trying to do something to give proper credit where due by changing the good time law, “the majority opinion in Mullins misses the mark,” Egger said.