Heist v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.

• Decision Date: 23 September 2022
• Docket Number: S-20-813,S-20-813.
• Citation: 312 Neb. 480,979 N.W.2d 772
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: Robert J. HEIST II, appellant, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES et al., appellees.

312 Neb. 480

Robert J. Heist II, Appellant, v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al., Appellees.

No. S-20-813

Supreme Court of Nebraska

September 23, 2022

1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2. __:__. An appellate court reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.

3. Immunity: Jurisdiction. Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter.

4. Jurisdiction: Statutes. Subject matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation present questions of law.

5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

6. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the lower court's decision.

7. Sentences: Statutes: Time. The good time law to be applied to a defendant's sentence is the law in effect at the time the defendant's sentence becomes final.

8. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. Where a lower court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of a claim, issue, or question, an appellate court also lacks the power to determine the merits of the claim issue, or question presented to the lower court.

9. Administrative Law: Immunity: Waiver Jurisdiction: Declaratory Judgments. The Administrative Procedure Act provides a limited statutory waiver of the State's sovereign immunity and confers subject matter jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination regarding the validity of a state agency's rule or regulation.

10. Administrative Law: Words and Phrases. The Administrative Procedure Act defines a "rule or regulation" as any standard of general application adopted by an agency in accordance with the authority conferred by statute.

11. Administrative law. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a rule or regulation shall not include internal procedural documents which provide guidance to staff on agency organization and operations, lacking the force of law, and not relied upon to bind the public.

12. Administrative Law: Jurisdiction: Declaratory Judgments: Statutes. The Administrative Procedure Act does not confer jurisdiction for declaratory relief concerning judicial interpretation of a statute.

13. Declaratory Judgments: Immunity: Waiver. Nebraska's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive the State's sovereign immunity.

14. Declaratory Judgments: Public Officers and Employees Immunity. A declaratory judgment action against a state officer or agent seeking relief from an invalid act or an abuse of authority by an officer or agent is not a suit against the State and is therefore not barred by the principles of sovereign immunity.

15. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain direct, and unambiguous.

16. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. Components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.

17. __:__:__. In order for a court to inquire into a statute's legislative history, that statute in question must be open to construction, and a statute is open to construction when its terms require interpretation or may reasonably be considered ambiguous.

18. Statutes. The statutory canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius recognizes that an expressed object of a statute's operation excludes the statute's operation on all other objects unmentioned by the statute.

19. Sentences. Where a mandatory minimum sentence is involved, an inmate's parole eligibility date is calculated by subtracting the mandatory minimum sentence from the court's minimum sentence, halving the difference, and adding that difference to the mandatory minimum.

20. Statutes: Legislature: Presumptions: Intent. In construing a statute, it is presumed that the Legislature intended a sensible, rather than an absurd, result.

21. Statutes. Under the absurd results doctrine, a court may deviate from the plain language of the statutory text if application of the plain language would lead to manifest absurdity.

22. __ . The absurd results doctrine does not include substantive errors arising from a drafter's failure to appreciate the effect of certain statutory provisions.

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: John A. Colborn, Judge. Affirmed.

Robert J. Heist II, pro se.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Scott R. Straus for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and Papik, JJ., and Steinke, District Judge.

Funke, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Robert J. Heist II, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) system, appeals the dismissal of his petition for declaratory judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Nebraska's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA). Heist argues that good time credit earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,107(2)(b) (Cum. Supp. 2020) applies to an inmate's parole eligibility date (PED). In affirming the decision of the district court, we conclude that good time earned pursuant to § 83-1,107(2)(b) is applicable only to reduce an inmate's maximum sentence and, accordingly, has no applicability to an inmate's PED.

II. BACKGROUND

1. Factual Background

On April 4, 2016, Heist was sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum of 11 years (with a mandatory minimum of 3 years) and a maximum of 25 years in the DCS system for child enticement. According to DCS records, Heist's PED is March 30, 2023, and DCS' brief on appeal gives his tentative release date (TRD) as February 10, 2030.

Since his incarceration, Heist has been earning good time credit under § 83-1,107. It is undisputed that the reductions of Heist's sentence under § 83-1,107 have been, and continue to be, deducted from the maximum term of his sentence to calculate the date when discharge from state custody becomes mandatory. It further appears that, currently, no reductions have been applied to Heist's minimum sentence, mandatory minimum sentence, or PED.

2. DCS Policy 104.08

DCS has adopted "Policy 104.08," which is titled "Inmate Time Calculations and Sentencing." The stated purpose of DCS' Policy 104.08 is to "outlin[e] methodology for calculating inmate's sentences." As to procedures for inmate time computations, Policy 104.08 notes that there are seven separate Nebraska laws that govern the release of all inmates committed to DCS and explains that "[t]hese statutes, along with the opinions of Nebraska courts and the state Attorney General's office, form the basis of all time calculations." The first Nebraska law identified is 2011 Neb. Laws, L.B. 191, which Policy 104.08 describes as follows:

A. Effective March 16, 2011, LB 191 amended sections 83-1,107 and 83-1,108

1. LB 191 added an opportunity [for a committed offender] to earn additional good time based on institutional behavior. [DCS] will reduce the term of a committed inmate by three days on the first day of each month, following a 12-month period of incarceration within [312 Neb. 484] [DCS], during which the inmate has not been found guilty of a Class I or Class II offense, or more than three Class III offenses under [DCS'] disciplinary code. Reductions earned pursuant to LB 191 shall not be subject to forfeit or withholding by [DCS],

3. Procedural Facts

Heist filed a petition against DCS, Scott Frakes in his official capacity as DCS director, Mickie Baum in her official capacity as DCS records administrator, and Candace Bottorf in her official capacity as DCS agency legal counsel (hereinafter collectively DCS) for declaratory judgment under the APA and the UDJA. Heist alleged that Policy 104.08 improperly withholds L.B. 191 good time from PEDs. He also argued that Policy 104.08 is a rule or regulation for purposes of the APA and is not authorized by the language of § 83-1,107 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,110 (Reissue 2014). DCS filed a motion to dismiss which, by agreement and notice to both parties, was converted to a motion for summary judgment. Heist subsequently filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

In October 2020, the district court entered an order sustaining DCS' motion, overruling Heist's motion, and dismissing Heist's complaint. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Heist's APA claim, because Policy 104.08 was not a rule or regulation as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-901 (Cum. Supp. 2020) and the State did not waive its sovereign immunity. The court further concluded that DCS was entitled to summary judgment on the UDJA claim, because Policy 104.08 accurately outlines how sentences are to be calculated pursuant to Nebraska law and Heist's PED was correctly calculated. Heist appeals.

Heist filed a petition to bypass review by the Nebraska Court of Appeals, asserting the case involves an issue of first impression in Nebraska. We granted the petition...