Supreme Court decision raises concerns about ‘shutting’ people back into county jails • Nebraska Examiner

LINCOLN — A Nebraska Supreme Court ruling Friday is raising concerns that some felons may have to return to county jail to serve more days behind bars.

It would be costly for counties and could worsen overcrowding in local jails, some officials said, although one prosecutor said the impact would be limited.

The state’s highest court, in a rare 4-3 split decision, ruled Friday that county jail inmates must serve 15 days on each individual conviction before any “good time” reduction can be applied to their sentences.

Several counties, including at least Lancaster and Hall counties, are now counting good time (a reduced sentence for good behavior), contrary to Friday’s ruling. They read state law so that inmates must serve 15 days of their entire prison sentence, which may span multiple separate convictions.

This results in a shorter jail time than if each conviction had to serve 15 days of what is known as a “felony sentence.”

Lancaster County Public Defender Christy Egger called the decision “shortsighted” because it doesn’t explain how county jails should respond to the decision. If that means some defendants have to go back to jail for a few more days, Egger said, it could lead to increased overcrowding in county jails like Lancaster.

Egger cited a scathing dissenting opinion written by outgoing Chief Justice Mike Heavican, who wrote that it took a “Sisyphean effort” for the majority to conclude that state law requires 15 days behind bars for each individual offense before having a good time .

“If significant work must be done to determine whether a statute is unambiguous, then the statute is likely ambiguous,” Havican wrote.

If a statute is ambiguous, the “rule of leniency” requires that the issue be decided in favor of the defendant, he said.

‘Apples and Oranges’

The lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court said Monday he doubted Friday’s ruling would require “throwing anyone back to prison,” as happened a decade ago when the state Department of Corrections miscalculated the release date of dozens prisoners, demanding several people return to prison.

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

“I don’t think it will affect a lot of current cases,” Rodak said.

First, he said, there aren’t many criminals serving consecutive sentences for two completely different crimes. Offenders are more likely to serve concurrent sentences, and Friday’s ruling does not affect such concurrent sentences.

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

Longtime Hall County Public Defender Gerald Piccolo said he expects his county to consider sending some people back to jail to work extra days they haven’t served, based on the Supreme Court ruling. However, he added that he would not do this if he were in charge of the prison because of the costs associated with finding these people and housing them.

The case before the Supreme Court involved Samuel Mullins, now 35, who pleaded no contest to resisting arrest in December 2022 and then domestic violence in January 2023. These were two separate offences.

In Box Butte County, state law was interpreted to require two separate 15-day jail sentences for two separate crimes before a good time reduction could be applied.

District interpretation appealed

Bell Island, the attorney representing Mullins, challenged the district’s interpretation as incorrect. The Nebraska Bar Association, represented by Lincoln attorney Spike Eickholt, joined the case, arguing that the 15-day wait should apply to the “sum of all sentences” to be served.

Friday’s unsigned majority opinion agreed with arguments made by Rodak, who argued that “common sense, legislative intent and public policy would seem to dictate that convictions for separate offenses, unless ordered by the Court to run concurrently, should be separate and independent sentencing calculations.”

The judicial majority concluded that there was no need “depend on legislative materials, such as committee reports or debates” and “review such legislative materials” to determine whether the state law regarding the calculation of good time in a county jail is ambiguous or not because the language of the law appears clear.

That prompted a dissent from Heavican, who resigned Oct. 31, as well as a separate dissent written by Judge Jonathan Papik and signed by Judge Stephanie Stacey.

Egger, the Lancaster County public defender, said the decision did a “disservice” because it failed to take into account legislative discussions and lawmakers’ efforts to standardize criminal penalties across the state.

“At a time when prisons are overcrowded and the cost of incarcerating prisoners is getting higher and higher, and when it is clear that the Legislature was trying to do something to provide proper assessment where it was needed by changing the good time law “The majority view in Mullins is not true,” Egger said.