STEPHAN, J.

Article III of the interstate Agreement on Detainers (Agreement)1 prescribes the procedure by which a prisoner against whom a detainer has been lodged may demand a speedy disposition of outstanding charges.2 This procedure may be utilized where there is pending in a party state "any untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against [a] prisoner" incarcerated in another party state.3 The issue presented in this appeal is whether a detainer for a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense but not sentenced falls within this provision. We conclude that the district court for Cheyenne County did not err in determining that such a detainer does not fall within this provision of the Agreement, and we therefore affirm its judgment.

BACKGROUND

Timothy D. Jimenez was charged with possession of methamphetamine, a Class IV felony, and was further alleged to be a habitual criminal. On March 9, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to the possession charge and the State dismissed the habitual criminal allegation. The matter was set for sentencing on April 27.

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Jimenez was arrested in Colorado. He failed to appear on April 27, 2010, and the Cheyenne County Attorney's office obtained a bench warrant for his arrest. At some point thereafter, a detainer was placed on Jimenez in Colorado by the Cheyenne County sheriff's office.

On February 22, 2011, Jimenez filed a request for final disposition in Cheyenne County. He alleged that he was serving a term of imprisonment in Colorado and that as a result of the detainer, he was unable to access all of the Colorado institution's educational and treatment alternatives. He asked to be brought before the Nebraska court for final disposition or for an order directing the State of Nebraska to release the detainer. The State filed an objection to the request.

On March 3, 2011, Jimenez filed a motion asking the court to order the Cheyenne County Attorney's office to produce an "Inmate Status Certificate" from the official who had custody of Jimenez, in accordance with § 29-759. Jimenez alleged that he had reason to believe that the certificate was in the custody of the Cheyenne County Attorney, the sheriff, or other law enforcement agency.

In an order dated March 25, 2011, the Cheyenne County District Court determined that the Agreement did not apply, because Jimenez had no untried matters pending in Nebraska. The court found that Jimenez had been convicted of the offense when his plea was accepted and that therefore, guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The only remaining matter was the imposition of the sentence. The court denied Jimenez' motion for a court order and request for final disposition, and Jimenez appealed. We granted the State's petition to bypass pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-1106 (Reissue 2008).

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Jimenez asserts, summarized, that the district court erred in determining he was not eligible to invoke the Agreement to obtain a final disposition of his Nebraska conviction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.4

ANALYSIS

The Agreement is a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact to which Nebraska is a contracting party.5 It is codified in § 29-759. The Agreement does not define "detainer," but we have stated that a detainer is a notification filed with the institution in which an individual is serving a sentence, advising the prisoner that he or she is wanted to face criminal charges pending in another jurisdiction.6

Article I of the Agreement provides in part:

The Agreement states throughout that it applies to detainers filed in connection with "any untried indictment, information or complaint."8 Article III(a) of the Agreement states:

In Article III(d), the Agreement also provides:

The issue in the case at bar is whether the phrase "untried indictments, informations or complaints" applies to Jimenez' Nebraska case, in which he has been convicted but not sentenced. Although we have not previously considered the meaning of this phrase in this or similar contexts, other courts have done so.

In Carchman v. Nash,11 the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a detainer based upon a probation violation fell within the language of the Agreement. In concluding that it did not, the Court reasoned that "[t]he most natural interpretation of the words `indictment,' `information,' and `complaint' is that they refer to documents charging an individual with having committed a criminal offense."12 The Court stated that its interpretation is "reinforced by the adjective `untried,' which would seem to refer to matters that can be brought to full trial, and by Art. III's requirement that a prisoner who requests final disposition of the indictment, information, or complaint `shall be brought to trial within 180 days.'"13 The Court concluded that this interpretation was consistent with the legislative history of the Agreement.

Other courts have interpreted the language of the Agreement in a similar manner. For example, in State v. Barefield,14 the Washington Supreme Court applied the reasoning of Carchman and stated, "Neither the history nor the purposes of the [Agreement] indicate that it ought to be applied to sentencing detainers." A New Mexico appellate court in State v. Sparks15 also cited Carchman in support of its conclusion that "a request for the disposition of an outstanding sentencing is not cognizable under the [Agreement]." The court determined that "sentencing, like probation revocation, does not fall within the plain meaning of an `untried indictment, information or complaint'" and that therefore, the provisions of the Agreement did not apply.16 The court reasoned that use of the adjective "untried" supported a conclusion that the Agreement does not apply when a defendant has been convicted but not sentenced.17

In Moody v. Corsentino,18 the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Agreement did not apply to a prisoner's request to be sentenced in an action in which he had been convicted. The court reasoned that while indictments, informations, and complaints are all documents that institute charges against a person, "the sentencing process merely finalizes the disposition of charges that have already been tried," and that therefore, the language of the Agreement suggests that it does not extend to sentencing detainers.19 The court concluded, "[A] detainer placing a hold on a prisoner based on an unresolved sentencing determination in another jurisdiction arising from charges for which the prisoner has already been convicted does not trigger the procedural requirements" of the Agreement.20 Other courts are in accord.21

Jimenez urges that we follow two cases which reached conclusions contrary to the authorities discussed above. In Hall v. State of Fla.,22 the court held that the phrase "untried indictment, information or complaint," as used in the Agreement, encompassed sentencing. The court relied on cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts held that a trial includes sentencing for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.23 And in Tinghitella v. State of Cal.,24 the court concluded that the terms "trial" and "final disposition" as used in the Agreement "encompass sentencing," meaning the Agreement "imposes an obligation on California to sentence a Texas prisoner in timely fashion where California has secured the conviction of the prisoner in California but he has not been sentenced before his incarceration in Texas on a Texas conviction."

We are not persuaded by these cases. As the court noted in Barefield,25 the holding of Tinghitella is arguably dicta because the defendant had not complied with the Agreement's requirements. And the reasoning and conclusion of Tinghitella were called into question by the subsequent decision in Carchman.26

Other courts have taken the position that "trial," as used in the Agreement, does not include sentencing. In U.S. v. Coffman,27 the court disagreed with Tinghitella, and held that "`trial' does not include sentencing for purposes of the [Agreement's] anti-shuttling provisions." The court agreed with the Tinghitella court's determination that the use of "final disposition" in the Agreement includes sentencing, but determined that the Agreement "differentiates between the trial phase of a proceeding and all post-trial procedures, including sentencing."28 It is true that in Nebraska, the judgment in a criminal case is the sentence.29 But it does not logically follow that a pending sentencing renders an indictment, information, or complaint "untried."

We therefore hold that a detainer for a prisoner who has been convicted but not sentenced does not relate to an "untried indictment, information or complaint" and thus does not trigger the procedural requirements of the Agreement. The district court did not err in concluding that the Agreement does not apply to Jimenez and in denying his motion for a court order and request for final disposition.

Jimenez also argues that the district court erred in not ordering the State of Nebraska to request an "Inmate Status Certificate" from the Colorado Department of Corrections. Having determined that the Agreement does not apply to the pending Nebraska proceedings, it is unnecessary for us to address this issue. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.30

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT and GERRARD, JJ., not participating.