O'Neal v. State
| Decision Date | 22 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. S–14–262,S–14–262 |
| Citation | 863 N.W.2d 162 |
| Parties | Keeva T. O'Neal, appellant, v. State of Nebraska, appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Renee L. Mathias, of Schaefer Shapiro, L.L.P., for appellant.
Keeva T. O'Neal, pro se.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein for appellee.
1. Habeas Corpus: Appeal and Error.On appeal of a habeas petition, an appellate court reviews the trial court's factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.
2. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error.When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decisions made by the lower court.
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. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error.If the court from which an appeal was taken lacked jurisdiction, then the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction.
5. Courts: Habeas Corpus: Jurisdiction: Venue.By statute, any and all district courts in Nebraska have subject matter jurisdiction of claims for habeas corpus relief. The determination of which district court should hear a habeas petition is essentially a question of venue and not one of jurisdiction.
6. Venue: Waiver.Unlike jurisdiction, venue is a personal privilege which, if not raised by a party, is waived unless prohibited by law.
7. Venue: Waiver.A claim of improper venue is a matter that may be waived by failure to make a timely objection.
8. Venue: Time.For an objection to venue to be timely in a civil case, it must be raised before or in the defendant's answer.
9. Jurisdiction: Venue: Words and Phrases.Jurisdiction and venue are not synonymous and interchangeable functions in litigation.
10. Habeas Corpus: Jurisdiction.The failure to attach a copy of the relevant commitment order to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not prevent a court from exercising jurisdiction over that petition.
11. Appeal and Error.A proper result will not be reversed merely because it was reached for the wrong reason.
12. Constitutional Law: Habeas Corpus.A writ of habeas corpus in the State of Nebraska is quite limited in comparison to those of federal courts, which allow a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner when he or she is in custody in violation of the federal Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States.
13. Judgments: Collateral Attack.Only a void judgment may be collaterally attacked.
14. Habeas Corpus: Jurisdiction: Sentences.A writ of habeas corpus will not lie to discharge a person from a sentence of penal servitude where the court imposing the sentence had jurisdiction of the offense and the person of the defendant, and the sentence was within the power of the court to impose.
15. Habeas Corpus.A writ of habeas corpus is not a writ for correction of errors, and its use will not be permitted for that purpose.
Keeva T. O'Neal, an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary in Lincoln, Nebraska, appeals from the order of the district court which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because we find that the district court reached the correct result, we affirm.
On appeal of a habeas petition, an appellate court reviews the trial court's factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916, 744 N.W.2d 410 (2008).
When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decisions made by the lower court. Shaffer v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 289 Neb. 740, 857 N.W.2d 313 (2014).
In 1997, pursuant to a plea agreement, O'Neal pled no contest to, and was convicted of, three counts of attempted first degree assault and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Count I (one of the assault counts) and count II (the corresponding use count) related to actions
O'Neal took against an “Edward Duncan.” He was sentenced to 4 to 5 years' imprisonment for the assault convictions and 20 to 25 years' imprisonment on the use of a weapon convictions. The sentencing court ordered all five sentences to run consecutively.
Following sentencing, O'Neal filed a direct appeal, but it was dismissed for failure to file a poverty affidavit. He then moved for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court concluded that his trial counsel had failed to adequately perfect a direct appeal and granted relief in the form of a new direct appeal.
On direct appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed O'Neal's convictions and sentences for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, affirmed his convictions for attempted first degree assault, and modified the sentences imposed for attempted first degree assault to 20 months' to 5 years' imprisonment each. See State v. O'Neal, No. A–04–536, 2005 WL 1022027 (). The Court of Appeals concluded that O'Neal's assignments of error either lacked merit or were waived by his no contest pleas. In particular, it rejected O'Neal's argument that the information on which he was charged was defective for failing to properly identify the victim of counts I and II.
On August 23, 2013, O'Neal filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court for Douglas County. He alleged that his imprisonment for counts I and II was the equivalent of being committed for crimes “which never occurred,” and thus was a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments, because the victim of counts I and II was an “Allen Duncan” and not the “Edward Duncan” identified in the amended information. He further alleged that he was entitled to discharge, because at the time of his application, he had “already been confined for a period which exceed[ed] the terms of imprisonment imposed on counts III through V” and he was being imprisoned only on counts I and II. O'Neal's petition did not include a copy of the relevant commitment or detention order.
In January 2014, the district court entered an order “request[ing] that the State file a written response to [O'Neal's] Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” The State complied with this request, and on March 3, it filed a response with the court. In its response, the State argued that O'Neal's petition “should be denied for lack of jurisdiction.” It explained:
[O'Neal] acknowledges in his writ that he is currently serving a term of incarceration and that he is currently in the Lincoln Penitentiary, which is not located in Douglas County. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Addison v. Parratt, 204 Neb. 656, 284 N.W.2d 574 (1979) (); Gillard v. Clark, 105 Neb. 84, 179 N.W. 396 (1920) ().
In its response, the State also argued that habeas relief should be denied on the merits of O'Neal's petition.
On March 7, 2014, the district court entered an order denying O'Neal's petition for a writ of habeas corpus due to lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that under Addison v. Parratt, 204 Neb. 656, 284 N.W.2d 574 (1979), it did not have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition from O'Neal, because he was “currently serving his incarceration at the penitentiary in Lincoln, Nebraska, which is not in Douglas County.” The court also concluded that even if it had jurisdiction, O'Neal was not entitled to habeas relief.
O'Neal timely appeals. Pursuant to our statutory authority to regulate the dockets of the appellate courts of this state, we moved the case to our docket. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24–1106(3) (Reissue 2008).
O'Neal assigns that the district court erred in denying his application for a writ of habeas corpus.
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. Big John's Billiards v. State, 283 Neb. 496, 811 N.W.2d 205 (2012). If the court from which an appeal was taken lacked jurisdiction, then the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction. Id .
In the instant case, the jurisdiction of the district court to consider O'Neal's petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been challenged on two separate grounds. The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over O'Neal's petition, because he was not confined within the county in which the court sat. The State also argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction, because O'Neal failed to attach a copy of his commitment order to the petition, as required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29–2801 (Reissue 2008). As we explain below, we conclude that neither O'Neal's failure to file his habeas petition in the county of his confinement nor his failure to attach a copy of his commitment order to his petition deprived the district court of jurisdiction.
The first jurisdictional question is whether the district court was deprived of jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that O'Neal was not confined within the county where the action was commenced. We conclude that it was not.
It has long been the general rule that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be filed in the county where the petitioner is confined. See, Addison v. Parratt, 204 Neb. 656, 284 N.W.2d 574 (1979) ; Gillard v. Clark, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maria T. v. Jeremy S.
...of Tail, Tail v. Olson , supra note 3.21 See Rehbein v. Clarke, 257 Neb. 406, 598 N.W.2d 39 (1999).22 See O'Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 863 N.W.2d 162 (2015) (Cassel, J., concurring).23 See Giles v. Giles, 30 Neb. 624, 46 N.W. 916 (1890).24 State ex rel. Cochrane v. Blanco, 177 Neb. 149, 1......
-
Friedman v. Friedman, S–14–710
...must set forth a separate division of the brief prepared in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant. 863 N.W.2d 162 24 Thus, the cross-appeal section must set forth a separate title page, a table of contents, a statement of the case, assigned errors, propositions ......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...must set forth a separate division of the brief prepared in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant. 863 N.W.2d 16224 Thus, the cross-appeal section must set forth a separate title page, a table of contents, a statement of the case, assigned errors, propositions o......
-
Purdie v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
...of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decisions made by the lower court. O'Neal v. State, 290 Neb. 943, 863 N.W.2d 162 (2015).ANALYSIS Purdie claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the appeal. Purdie asserts that he sought judic......