State v. Hunt , 299 Neb. 573 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    05/25/2018 12:07 AM CDT
    - 573 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    K eshaud D. Hunt, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed April 6, 2018.     No. S-17-327.
    1.	 Criminal Law: Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and
    Error. A trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer a pending criminal
    proceeding to the juvenile court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
    2.	 Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a
    trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unrea-
    sonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
    and evidence.
    3.	 Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen-
    tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion
    by the trial court.
    4.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction. In order to retain proceedings
    in criminal court, the court need not resolve every statutory factor in
    favor of transfer against the juvenile, and there are no weighted factors
    and no prescribed method by which more or less weight is assigned to
    a specific factor. It is a balancing test by which public protection and
    societal security are weighed against the practical and nonproblemati-
    cal rehabilitation of the juvenile.
    5.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Evidence. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816(3)
    (Reissue 2016), after considering the evidence and the criteria set forth
    in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276 (Reissue 2016), the court shall transfer the
    case to juvenile court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case
    in county court or district court.
    6.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Judgments. When ruling on a motion to
    transfer to juvenile court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816(3) (Reissue
    2016), the county or district court must set forth findings supporting
    its decision.
    - 574 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    7.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Proof. In a motion to transfer
    to juvenile court, the burden of proving a sound basis for retaining
    jurisdiction in county court or district court lies with the State.
    8.	 Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Evidence. When a district
    court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction over a juvenile is supported by
    appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that the court abused its discre-
    tion in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court.
    9.	 Sentences: Appeal and Error. Where a sentence imposed within the
    statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court
    must determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
    considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable
    legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed.
    10.	 Sentences. When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to con-
    sider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experi-
    ence, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or
    record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as
    well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the amount of violence
    involved in the commission of the crime.
    11.	 ____. Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to direct that
    sentences imposed for separate crimes be served either concurrently
    or consecutively. This is so, even when offenses carry a mandatory
    minimum sentence, unless the statute requires that consecutive sentences
    be imposed.
    Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Gary B.
    R andall, Judge. Affirmed.
    James Martin Davis, of Davis Law Office, for appellant.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Sarah E. Marfisi
    for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ., and Pirtle,
    Judge.
    Stacy, J.
    Keshaud D. Hunt was 15 years old when he was charged
    in district court with multiple felonies arising from two armed
    robberies. His motion to transfer the case to juvenile court was
    overruled, and eventually, he pled no contest to an amended
    information. At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied
    - 575 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    Hunt’s request for disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile
    Code1 and instead imposed consecutive prison sentences. Hunt
    appeals, assigning error to the denial of his motion to trans-
    fer and his request for disposition under the juvenile code.
    We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    On April 21, 2016, Hunt was charged with attempted sec-
    ond degree murder, robbery, attempted robbery, and three
    counts of using a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony.
    All charges stemmed from events alleged to have occurred
    on March 16 in Omaha, Nebraska. Hunt was 15 years old at
    the time, and the charges were filed in the Douglas County
    District Court.2
    Motion to Transfer
    After entering pleas of not guilty to the charges, Hunt moved
    to transfer the case to juvenile court pursuant to § 29-1816(3).
    An evidentiary hearing was held on September 8, 2016.
    The State offered two exhibits, both of which were received.
    The first exhibit was a probable cause affidavit detailing Hunt’s
    alleged crimes and the ensuing investigation. That exhibit
    showed that on March 16, 2016, around 8:15 p.m., a suspect
    wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and gray shoes entered a
    convenience store on South 24th Street in Omaha. He pulled
    out a black semiautomatic handgun and pointed it at two store
    employees while demanding money from the cash register. One
    of the employees pulled out his own handgun and told the sus-
    pect to drop his gun. The suspect exclaimed “‘don’t do it’” and
    began retreating toward the door. But instead of leaving, the
    suspect ran back toward the employee, while firing multiple
    shots from the handgun. One shot grazed the employee’s waist.
    The suspect then fled the scene.
    1
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204(5) (Supp. 2017).
    2
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1816(1)(a)(ii) and 43-246.01(3)(c) (Reissue
    2016).
    - 576 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    Later the same night around 10 o’clock, a suspect wearing a
    black hooded sweatshirt and gray shoes entered another Omaha
    convenience store, located on North 72d Street. He approached
    an unarmed security guard and placed a black semiautomatic
    handgun to the guard’s face. The suspect took approximately
    $200 from the registers and left the store.
    A Crime Stoppers tip led investigators to Hunt. After speak-
    ing with Hunt’s juvenile probation officer, police learned that
    Hunt’s electronic tracking device showed he had visited an
    Omaha grocery store on the evening of March 16, 2016. Video
    from the grocery store showed Hunt wearing a black hooded
    sweatshirt and gray shoes with the same markings as the shoes
    worn in both convenience store robberies. Police also learned
    that Hunt returned home from the grocery store and cut off his
    electronic monitoring device around 7:45 p.m. The first conve-
    nience store was robbed approximately 30 minutes later.
    The second exhibit was a certified copy of Hunt’s juvenile
    court file. That file showed that in 2015, Hunt was found to be
    within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247 (Cum. Supp.
    2014) as a result of committing multiple armed robberies when
    he was 14 years old. The juvenile petition alleged that on or
    about July 28, 2015, Hunt committed the crimes of (1) using
    a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony, (2) two counts
    of robbery, (3) two counts of attempted robbery, and (4) two
    counts of tampering with physical evidence. Hunt eventually
    admitted to one count of using a deadly weapon (firearm) to
    commit a felony (a Class IC felony), one count of robbery (a
    Class II felony), one count of attempted robbery (a Class II
    felony), and one count of tampering with physical evidence
    (a Class IV felony). One of the 2015 robberies involved the
    same convenience store Hunt was accused of robbing in
    March 2016.
    The juvenile court accepted Hunt’s admissions to the 2015
    crimes and placed him in “shelter care” under the supervision
    of juvenile probation pending disposition. On December 22,
    2015, Hunt was returned to his mother’s home, ordered to wear
    - 577 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    an electronic monitoring device and abide by the conditions of
    the “H.O.M.E.” program, and ordered to participate in indi-
    vidual counseling and gang prevention services. On January
    25, 2016, the court ordered Hunt to participate in additional
    counseling and treatment programs and scheduled a continued
    disposition hearing for June 27. But before that hearing, Hunt
    was arrested for the March 2016 robberies.
    At the transfer hearing, Hunt offered the testimony of his
    juvenile probation officer, Ladonna Strong. Strong had super-
    vised Hunt since June 2016. Strong testified that Hunt, who
    was being housed at the Douglas County Youth Center at the
    time of the transfer hearing, had been respectful, patient, open,
    and honest with her. According to Strong, Hunt was a member
    of a gang in Omaha. She suggested Hunt would benefit from a
    structured rehabilitative environment.
    Strong testified that after the 2015 robberies but before the
    robbery charges in March 2016, the State sought a group home
    placement for Hunt given the amount of time he had spent in
    the Douglas County Youth Center, but Hunt was rejected by
    both Boys Town and Omaha Home for Boys primarily due
    to the serious nature of his 2015 charges. Hunt applied to a
    group home facility in Arizona which was willing to accept
    him, but he was returned home with his mother and put on
    electronic monitoring.
    Strong testified that Hunt and his family received numerous
    services once Hunt returned home, including family support,
    gang intervention, individual and family therapy, and electronic
    monitoring. Hunt was ordered to participate in “pro-social
    activit[ies],” attend school, and attend individual and family
    therapy. He initially complied, but within a few weeks, he was
    suspended from school for fighting, began missing curfew, cut
    off his electronic monitoring device, and used marijuana. As a
    result, the State already was seeking to revoke Hunt’s place-
    ment when, on March 16, 2016, Hunt cut off his electronic
    monitor a second time and allegedly committed the current
    felony offenses.
    - 578 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    Strong testified that although Hunt had been accepted to
    the Arizona group home facility before his current charges, he
    had no pending application at the time of the transfer hearing,
    and there was no guarantee Hunt would be accepted into the
    Arizona facility again. Strong testified that the secure youth
    detention facility in Kearney, Nebraska, was a housing option
    of last resort from which Hunt could not be rejected. Strong
    testified the Kearney facility offered therapy and services
    directed to youth that she believed would benefit Hunt. But
    she noted that therapy and other services are also available in
    adult prisons.
    The district court took the motion to transfer under advise-
    ment and later denied it in a written order entered September
    12, 2016. In its order, the district court found that Hunt’s
    current and prior offenses were extremely violent and aggres-
    sive and committed in a premeditated manner. It found that
    although Hunt was only 15 years old, he was charged with
    crimes of violence involving guns used to rob others, and his
    crimes exhibited sophistication and maturity. The district court
    found that Hunt was a gang member and his motivation for
    committing the charged offenses was self-serving. It deter-
    mined that although Hunt may be amenable to treatment, there
    were no guarantees “or even reasonable assurances” that Hunt
    would be accepted into a group home setting given this was his
    second episode of seriously violent offenses within a 9-month
    period, and the court concluded that without detention and
    rehabilitative treatment, Hunt presented a serious risk to the
    community. The court also found it was in Hunt’s best interests
    to be continued in secure detention.
    Ultimately, after weighing all the statutory factors, the dis-
    trict court concluded Hunt “exhibited behavior . . . of being a
    juvenile out of control, with access to multiple hand guns will-
    ing to commit violent acts of robbery without regard for the
    safety and welfare of others and as a result [found Hunt] to be
    a danger to the community.” Thus, the district court retained
    jurisdiction and overruled Hunt’s motion to transfer.
    - 579 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    At the time Hunt’s motion to transfer was denied, such an
    order was not final and appealable.3 However, we note that
    effective August 24, 2017, the Legislature amended the rel-
    evant statute to provide that “[a]n order granting or denying
    transfer of the case from county or district court to juvenile
    court shall be considered a final order for the purposes of
    appeal” and to give “any party” the right to appeal from such
    order within 10 days.4
    Plea and Sentence
    Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hunt pled no con-
    test to an amended information charging one count of using
    a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony (a Class IC
    felony), one count of robbery (a Class II felony), and one count
    of first degree assault (a Class II felony). The court accepted
    Hunt’s pleas, found him guilty, and ordered a presentence
    investigation report.
    The presentence report concluded Hunt was at a high risk
    to reoffend and recommended the court consider a sentence
    of incarceration “to promote accountability, to protect society
    and provide [Hunt] with any and all services deemed to be
    appropriate through the Douglas County Youth Center and the
    Nebraska Department of [Correctional Services].”
    At the sentencing hearing on February 23, 2017, Hunt’s
    counsel asked the court to consider disposition under the
    Nebraska Juvenile Code.5 In support, Hunt’s counsel cited
    Strong’s testimony at the transfer hearing that Hunt would
    improve in a structured, secured facility geared toward youth.
    The attorney reminded the court about the facility in Arizona,
    but offered no proof the facility would still accept Hunt.
    Alternatively, Hunt’s attorney asked the court to impose the
    “lowest level of incarceration” permitted for the convictions.
    3
    See State v. Bluett, 
    295 Neb. 369
    , 
    889 N.W.2d 83
    (2016).
    4
    § 29-1816(3)(c) (Supp. 2017). See 2017 Neb. Laws, L.B. 11, § 1.
    5
    See § 29-2204(5).
    - 580 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    The State asked the court to impose consecutive prison
    terms and asked that the terms be “substantial,” observing that
    Hunt already had “committed more violent crime in [a] few
    years [than] most really violent offenders do in a lifetime.”
    The district court denied Hunt’s request for disposition
    under the juvenile code, reasoning that Hunt was on probation
    for violent armed robberies when he committed the violent
    crimes for which he was being sentenced, and “obviously
    [was] getting no benefits from the supervision of the juvenile
    court.” The court referenced Hunt’s violent criminal history
    and the impact of Hunt’s crimes, particularly on the conve-
    nience store employee who was shot. The court expressed
    how difficult it was to sentence Hunt, who had turned 16 by
    the time of the hearing, to prison. But the court stated that
    after reading the presentence investigation report, it concluded
    Hunt was a public danger and, in order to protect the com-
    munity, Hunt needed to be incarcerated “long enough [to]
    grow up.”
    The court sentenced Hunt to 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment
    on the robbery conviction, 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment on
    the first degree assault conviction, and 5 to 20 years’ impris-
    onment on the conviction for use of a firearm to commit a
    felony. All sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.
    The court advised Hunt that assuming he lost no good time, he
    would be eligible for parole in 20 years, at the age of 36, and
    would be mandatorily discharged in 321⁄2 years. Hunt timely
    filed this direct appeal.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Hunt assigns the district court erred by (1) denying his
    motion to transfer to juvenile court and (2) refusing his request
    for disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and, instead,
    imposing excessive sentences.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1,2] A trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer a pend-
    ing criminal proceeding to the juvenile court is reviewed for
    - 581 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    an abuse of discretion.6 An abuse of discretion occurs when a
    trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable
    or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or con-
    science, reason, and evidence.7
    [3] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed
    within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the
    trial court.8
    ANALYSIS
    No A buse of Discretion
    in Denying Transfer
    Motions to transfer a pending criminal case to juvenile
    court are governed by § 29-1816(3) (Reissue 2016) and Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 43-276(1) (Reissue 2016). Generally speaking,
    § 29-1816(3) sets forth the procedure to be followed, and
    § 43-276(1) enumerates the factors a court must consider when
    ruling on a motion to transfer, which include
    (a) [t]he type of treatment such juvenile would most
    likely be amenable to; (b) whether there is evidence that
    the alleged offense included violence; (c) the motivation
    for the commission of the offense; (d) the age of the
    juvenile and the ages and circumstances of any others
    involved in the offense; (e) the previous history of the
    juvenile, including whether he or she had been convicted
    of any previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court;
    (f) the best interests of the juvenile; (g) consideration of
    public safety; (h) consideration of the juvenile’s ability
    to appreciate the nature and seriousness of his or her
    conduct; (i) whether the best interests of the juvenile and
    the security of the public may require that the juvenile
    continue in secure detention or under supervision for a
    period extending beyond his or her minority and, if so,
    6
    State v. Bluett, supra note 3.
    7
    Id.
    8
    State v. Stone, 
    298 Neb. 53
    , 
    902 N.W.2d 197
    (2017).
    - 582 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    the available alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j)
    whether the victim agrees to participate in mediation;
    (k) whether there is a juvenile pretrial diversion program
    established pursuant to sections 43-260.02 to 43-260.07;
    (l) whether the juvenile has been convicted of or has
    acknowledged unauthorized use or possession of a fire-
    arm; (m) whether a juvenile court order has been issued
    for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.03; (n)
    whether the juvenile is a criminal street gang member;
    and (o) such other matters as the parties deem relevant to
    aid in the decision.
    [4] In order to retain the proceedings, the court need not
    resolve every statutory factor against the juvenile, and there
    are no weighted factors and no prescribed method by which
    more or less weight is assigned to a specific factor.9 It is a
    balancing test by which public protection and societal security
    are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical reha-
    bilitation of the juvenile.10
    [5,6] After the court considers the evidence in light of the
    § 43-276 factors, “the case shall be transferred to juvenile
    court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case in
    county court or district court.”11 The court is required to “set
    forth findings for the reason for its decision” on the motion
    to transfer.12
    [7] The burden of proving a sound basis for retention lies
    with the State.13 Hunt argues that the State failed to meet its
    burden and that the district court abused its discretion in fail-
    ing to grant the transfer. We disagree.
    Summarized, the evidence at the transfer hearing showed
    Hunt was a gang member and had been adjudicated in 2015
    9
    State v. Dominguez, 
    290 Neb. 477
    , 
    860 N.W.2d 732
    (2015).
    10
    
    Id. 11 §
    29-1816(3)(a).
    12
    § 29-1816(3)(b).
    13
    State v. Dominguez, supra note 9.
    - 583 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    for robberies involving firearms when he was 14 years old. He
    had been detained in the Douglas County Youth Center, placed
    in “shelter care,” and returned home under probation super-
    vision on electronic monitoring. Hunt had received, among
    other services, drug and alcohol testing, a psychological eval­
    uation, electronic monitoring, individual and family therapy,
    and gang intervention services. Despite these services, Hunt
    was suspended from school for fighting, cut off his electronic
    monitoring device to avoid supervision, and used controlled
    substances. On March 16, 2016, Hunt cut off his electronic
    monitor for the second time, robbed two convenience stores at
    gunpoint, and shot an employee.
    In its order denying Hunt’s motion to transfer, the dis-
    trict court considered each of the applicable factors listed in
    § 43-276 and made specific findings. After weighing the vari-
    ous factors, the district court concluded there was a sound basis
    for retaining jurisdiction over the case and denied the motion
    to transfer.
    [8] When a district court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction
    over a juvenile is supported by appropriate evidence, it can-
    not be said that the court abused its discretion in refusing to
    transfer the case to juvenile court.14 The record in this case
    fully supports the reasoning of the district court, and we find
    no abuse of discretion in denying Hunt’s motion to transfer the
    case to juvenile court.
    No A buse of Discretion
    in Sentences
    Hunt argues the district court abused its discretion by refus-
    ing to enter disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and,
    instead, imposing consecutive prison sentences totaling 35 to
    60 years, which he argues is excessive.
    Hunt was convicted of (1) using a deadly weapon (fire-
    arm) to commit a felony, a Class IC felony punishable by
    14
    
    Id. - 584
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    imprisonment for a mandatory minimum of 5 years and a
    maximum of 50 years15; (2) robbery, a Class II felony punish-
    able by imprisonment for 1 to 50 years16; and (3) first degree
    assault, a Class II felony punishable by imprisonment for 1 to
    50 years.17 And because Hunt was under 18 years of age when
    he committed his crimes, the district court had the discretion to
    make disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code:
    Except when a term of life is required by law, whenever
    the defendant was under eighteen years of age at the
    time he or she committed the crime for which he or she
    was convicted, the court may, in its discretion, instead of
    imposing the penalty provided for the crime, make such
    disposition of the defendant as the court deems proper
    under the Nebraska Juvenile Code.18
    The district court denied Hunt’s request for disposition
    under the juvenile code, explaining that at the time he com-
    mitted the violent armed robbery for which he was being
    sentenced, he was under juvenile probation supervision for
    committing violent armed robberies in 2015 and “obviously
    [was] getting no benefits from the supervision of the juvenile
    court.” Moreover, the court reasoned that due to the serious
    danger Hunt posed to the community, it was necessary that he
    be incarcerated well beyond the age of majority. We find no
    abuse of discretion in denying Hunt’s motion for disposition
    under the juvenile code.
    [9] Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the sentences
    imposed. Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits
    is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must
    determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion
    in considering and applying the relevant factors as well as
    15
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1205(1)(c) (Reissue 2016) and 28-105(1) (Supp.
    2015).
    16
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324 (Reissue 2016) and § 28-105(1).
    17
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-308 (Reissue 2016) and § 28-105(1).
    18
    § 29-2204(5).
    - 585 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HUNT
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 573
    any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to
    be imposed.19
    [10,11] When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is
    to consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education
    and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past
    criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) moti-
    vation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense
    and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of
    the crime.20 Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to
    direct that sentences imposed for separate crimes be served
    either concurrently or consecutively.21 This is so even when
    offenses carry a mandatory minimum sentence, unless the stat-
    ute requires that consecutive sentences be imposed.22
    The sentence imposed on each of Hunt’s convictions was
    well within the statutory limits, and the record shows the
    court considered and applied the necessary sentencing fac-
    tors. Hunt’s criminal history was significant, his crimes were
    violent and involved firearms, and his behavior was escalating
    despite the services and supervision provided in juvenile court.
    Moreover, Hunt’s presentence report concluded he was at a
    high risk to reoffend. We cannot find an abuse of discretion in
    the sentences imposed.
    CONCLUSION
    For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the district
    court is affirmed.
    A ffirmed.
    Wright, Miller-Lerman, and K elch, JJ., not participating.
    19
    State v. Stone, supra note 8.
    20
    
    Id. 21 Id.
    22
    Id.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-17-327

Citation Numbers: 299 Neb. 573

Filed Date: 4/6/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/25/2019