The application for review provided in section 29-824 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order of the trial court granting the motion to suppress and a bill of exceptions containing all of the evidence, including affidavits, considered by the trial court in its ruling on the motion, and so certified by the trial court. The application shall be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, if the trial court is the district court, or with the clerk of the district court, if the trial court is the county court, within such time as may be ordered by the trial court, which in fixing such time shall take into consideration the length of time required to prepare the bill of exceptions, and shall also consider whether the defendant is in jail or whether he or she is on bail, but in no event shall more than thirty days be given in which to file such application.

Annotations

This section outlines the process for filing with the appellate court an application of review of an order granting a motion to suppress. State v. Hood, 23 Neb. App. 208, 869 N.W.2d 383 (2015).

This section specifically requires the appealing party, not the court reporter, to timely file the relevant documents with the clerk of the appellate court. State v. Hood, 23 Neb. App. 208, 869 N.W.2d 383 (2015).

The docket fee requirement contained in section 25-2729 necessarily applies to appeal brought by a prosecuting attorney pursuant to this section and sections 29-824 and 29-826, because section 25-2728 does not expressly exclude this section and sections 29-824 and 29-826 from the application of section 25-2729. State v. McArthur, 12 Neb. App. 657, 685 N.W.2d 733 (2004).

Where the State is appealing an order of a county court granting a motion for the return of seized property or to suppress evidence pursuant to sections 29-824 to 29-826, the State must comply with the standard procedures for appeal as provided in section 25-2729, as well as with the requirements specified within sections 29-824 to 29-826; failure to do so deprives the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to review the order. State v. McArthur, 12 Neb. App. 657, 685 N.W.2d 733 (2004).

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction where the State failed to file a transcript of the relevant evidence with the appellate court when filing an application for review. State v. Ruiz-Medina, 8 Neb. App. 529, 597 N.W.2d 403 (1999).