State v. Bree

520 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
required. In this case, the juvenile court did not make such
specific findings; the Court of Appeals did those calculations
for the juvenile court. The holding in Williams may have
escaped the notice of a juvenile court judge because Williams
is an adult criminal case. Thus, here, we explicitly extend this
requirement to the juvenile court. A juvenile court judge must
make specific findings on the record regarding any exclud-
able time periods as defined in § 29-1207 before making the
ultimate determination as to whether discharge would be in the
best interests of a child.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
Court of Appeals.
A ffirmed.
miller-lermAn, J., participating on briefs.
StAte of nebrASkA, Appellee, v.
rebeccA m. bree, AppellAnt.
827 N.W.2d 497
Filed March 15, 2013. 	Nos. S-12-684 through S-12-686.
1. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Whether a defendant is entitled to credit for time
served is a question of law. An appellate court reviews questions of law indepen-
dently of the lower court.
Appeals from the District Court for Platte County, robert
r. Steinke, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for
Platte County, frAnk J. SkorupA, Judge. Sentences vacated, and
causes remanded for resentencing.
Nathan J. Sohriakoff, Deputy Platte County Public Defender,
for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, George R. Love, and Siobhan
E. Duffy, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellee.
H eAvicAn, c.J., WrigHt, connolly, StepHAn, mccormAck,
and cASSel, JJ.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:40 AM CST

STATE v. BREE 	521
Cite as 285 Neb. 520
per curiAm.
NATURE OF CASE
In these three consolidated appeals, Rebecca M. Bree chal-
lenges the district court for Platte County’s affirmances of
orders of the county court for Platte County in which the
county court rejected her requests to have credit for time
served applied against her sentences. Because the county court
erred when it rejected Bree’s requests to grant credit, the dis-
trict court erred when it affirmed these rulings. We vacate the
sentences and remand the three causes for resentencing.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On October 5, 2011, Bree appeared in county court and
pled guilty to four misdemeanors in three separate cases. In
case No. S-12-684, she pled guilty to one count of issuing
bad checks (less than $200), a Class II misdemeanor under
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-611(1)(d) (Cum. Supp. 2012). In case No.
S-12-685, she pled guilty to one count of driving prior to rein-
statement of license, a Class III misdemeanor under Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 60-4,108(2) (Reissue 2010). In case No. S-12-686, she
pled guilty to one count of issuing bad checks (less than $200),
a Class II misdemeanor under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-611(1)(d)
and one count of issuing no-account checks (less than $200), a
Class II misdemeanor under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-611.01(1)(d)
(Cum. Supp. 2012). Bree was ordered to appear for sentencing
in each case on November 18.
Bree failed to appear for sentencing on November 18, 2011,
and the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest in each of
the three cases. The bench warrant in each case stated that a
“complaint has been filed” charging Bree variously with the
respective offenses recited above and identified those offenses
by statute number. None of the statutes cited are for the crime
of failure to appear. The bench warrants noted that Bree had
failed to appear on November 18 and ordered that she was
to be arrested and brought before the court “to answer such
complaint and be further dealt with according to law.” No
complaint was filed charging Bree with the offense of fail-
ure to appear, and hence Bree was not convicted for failure
to appear.

522 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
The record shows that Bree was arrested in Dodge County,
Nebraska, on January 3, 2012, and was transported to the Platte
County detention facility on January 6. On January 11, she was
released after signing a $2,500 appearance bond. On April 4,
she was sentenced as follows: in case No. S-12-684, 10 days
in the Platte County jail; in case No. S-12-685, a fine of $150
with an order that she be committed to the Platte County jail
until the fine was paid; and in case No. S-12-686, 10 days in
the Platte County jail for each of the two counts. The 10-day
jail sentences for the two convictions in case No. S-12-686
were ordered to be served concurrently with one another and
consecutively to the 10-day jail sentence in case No. S-12-684.
Bree did not receive any credit for time served.
Bree brought the failure to give credit for time previously
served to the county court’s attention. She sought credit for the
9 days she was in jail from January 3 through 11, 2012. The
county court rejected Bree’s assertion that she was entitled to
time served and cited to State v. Heckman, 239 Neb. 25, 473
N.W.2d 416 (1991).
Bree appealed to the district court and claimed that the
county court erred when it failed to give her credit for time
previously served. The district court rejected Bree’s assertion,
also citing to Heckman.
Bree appeals. Cases Nos. S-12-684 through S-12-686 have
been consolidated for briefing and disposition.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Bree claims that the district court erred when it affirmed the
county court’s rulings in which the county court rejected her
requests for credit for time served.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Whether a defendant is entitled to credit for time served
is a question of law. We review questions of law independently
of the lower court. See State v. Wills, ante p. 260, 826 N.W.2d
581 (2013).
ANALYSIS
We have recently observed that “[t]he calculation and appli-
cation of credit for time served is controlled by statute. Different

STATE v. BREE 	523
Cite as 285 Neb. 520
statutes address credit for time served based on whether the
defendant is sentenced to jail or prison.” State v. Wills, ante at
264, 826 N.W.2d at 585. See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-503
(Reissue 2010) (jail sentences) and 83-1,106 (Reissue 2008)
(prison sentences). The provisions are substantially the same,
and the reasoning of cases involving either provision is appli-
cable here. See State v. Wills, supra.
Because Bree was sentenced to jail, we look to § 47-503.
Section 47-503 provides in relevant part:
Credit against a jail term shall be given to any person
sentenced to a city or county jail for time spent in jail as
a result of the criminal charge for which the jail term is
imposed or as a result of conduct upon which such charge
is based.
Bree claims that both the county court and the district court
erred when they rejected her assertion that she should have
received credit against her sentences for the time she served
from January 3 through 11, 2012. We agree with Bree.
In reaching their determinations, the lower courts both relied
on State v. Heckman, supra. Indeed, the county court stated
that “[t]he situation presented here is identical to the situation
in State v. Heckman . . . .” We find that the lower courts’ read-
ing of Heckman was erroneous.
State v. Heckman, supra, involved § 83-1,106. Properly
read, the reasoning in Heckman applies to these cases. In
Heckman, the defendant served two separate periods in jail
prior to sentencing. The first period resulted from the initial
criminal charges of possession of a firearm by a felon, posses-
sion of a concealed weapon, and second-offense driving while
intoxicated. The defendant was later convicted and sentenced
for these charges. The second period was based on a charge
and arrest for the crime of failure to appear when ordered. See
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-908 (Reissue 2008). Although charged
and arrested, there was no conviction or sentence on the
failure to appear charge. We concluded that the time served
solely on the failure to appear charge could not be credited
against the first period of detention which was attributable to
the original offenses of which the defendant was convicted
and sentenced.

524 	285 NEBRASKA REPORTS
The facts in the present cases are distinguishable from
Heckman. The bench warrants in the present cases each
recited that a “complaint has been filed” against Bree, and the
offenses were listed in the bench warrants with particularity
by statute number, offense description, class of offense, and
date of offense. Although the narrative in each bench warrant
states that Bree did not comply with an order to appear on
November 18, 2011, the sheriff was ordered “to immediately
arrest” Bree “to bring . . . her before this court . . . to answer
such complaint.” Bree’s arrest on January 3, 2012, was for
the four crimes contained in the complaints. She was not
arrested for failure to appear. Whether or not Bree could have
been charged with failure to appear, she was not so charged.
See § 29-908.
In rejecting her argument regarding credit for time served,
the district court stated in each of the three orders that Bree
was “arrested and taken into custody . . . not as a result of the
offense for which she was actually sentenced in this case.” This
is not factually correct.
Bree was convicted of four crimes and received four jail
terms. Section 47-503 provides for credit to be given against a
sentence to jail “for time spent in jail as a result of the crimi-
nal charge for which the jail term is imposed or as a result of
conduct upon which such charge is based.” The bench warrants
in these cases show that Bree was arrested and jailed from
January 3 through 11, 2012, as a result of the four criminal
charges and convictions for which jail terms were ultimately
imposed. This period of time Bree “spent in jail” was a “result
of the criminal charge[s] for which the jail term[s]” at sen-
tencing were imposed. See § 47-503. Under § 47-503, she is
entitled to credit for time served from January 3 through 11,
2012, against the sentences imposed.
We have recently stated that “[n]o part of crediting time
served requires a court to exercise discretion . . . .” State v.
Wills, ante p. 260, 263, 826 N.W.2d 581, 585 (2013). Whether
a defendant is entitled to credit for time served is a question
of law. Id. Indeed we have even noted plain error where the
sentencing court failed to calculate credit for time served to

STATE v. BREE 	525
Cite as 285 Neb. 520
which a defendant was entitled. State v. Groff, 247 Neb. 586,
529 N.W.2d 50 (1995).
Credit for time served is not discretionary, but instead,
based on the record, an absolute and objective number. See
State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557, 772 N.W.2d 559 (2009). The file
before the county court showed that Bree had been arrested
on January 3, 2012, and released on January 11, pursuant to
bench warrants related to the three underlying informations.
In the absence of a presentence report which would readily
reflect time served, it is especially important that time served
be ascertained from a reading of the file so that credit can be
given at sentencing. The district court erred as a matter of law
when it affirmed the county court’s rejection of Bree’s requests
for credit for time served.
CONCLUSION
Bree was arrested and spent time in jail from January 3
through 11, 2012, as a result of criminal charges of which she
was later convicted and sentenced to jail. Under § 47-503, Bree
was entitled to credit for time served from January 3 through
11. The county court erred when it denied Bree’s requests for
credit for time served. The district court erred as a matter of
law when it affirmed these orders. We vacate the sentences
imposed and remand these three causes to the district court
with directions to remand them to the county court for resen-
tencing in accordance with this opinion.
SentenceS vAcAted, And cAuSeS
remAnded for reSentencing.
miller-lermAn, J., participating on briefs.