State v. Seaman
| Decision Date | 28 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | A-19-747.,Nos. A-19-746,s. A-19-746 |
| Citation | 947 N.W.2d 589,28 Neb.App. 667 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Daniel R. SEAMAN, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
Jonathan M. Frazer, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Siobhan E. Duffy, Lincoln, for appellee.
Following Daniel R. Seaman's plea-based convictions in two separate cases in the district court for Lancaster County—case No. A-19-746 () and case No. A-19-747 ()—the court transferred both cases to a drug court program in lieu of sentencing at that time. The court subsequently terminated Seaman's participation in the program and sentenced him on the underlying convictions. Seaman appeals, asserting that the court terminated him from drug court participation without due process, improperly received certain evidence, erred in finding sufficient evidence to terminate his participation in the drug court program, and imposed excessive sentences in both cases. The cases have since been consolidated for briefing and disposition by this court. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
In the first burglary case, the State filed an amended information, charging Seaman with two counts of burglary in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-507 (Reissue 2016), Class IIA felonies; one count of criminal possession of a financial transaction device, two or three devices, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-621(3) (Reissue 2016), a Class IV felony; and theft by unlawful taking, $5,000 or more, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-511 and 28-518(1) (Reissue 2016), a Class IIA felony.
A plea hearing was held on October 16, 2018, and Seaman's attorney informed the district court that while there was no plea agreement, Seaman was eligible to and intended to participate in the drug court program in both cases. Seaman pled guilty to all the charges of the amended information in the first burglary case. The factual basis provided by the State indicates that in April 2018, Seaman was involved in the theft and use of financial transaction devices and a vehicle that were taken during two residential break-ins.
The district court accepted Seaman's pleas and found him guilty of the charges in the first burglary case. At a subsequent hearing, Seaman signed a drug court bond after having been formally accepted into the drug court program.
In the second burglary case, the State filed an amended information, charging Seaman with three counts of burglary in violation of § 28-507, Class IIA felonies; one count of theft by unlawful taking, $5,000 or more, in violation of §§ 28-511 and 28-518(1), a Class IIA felony; and one count of first offense resisting arrest in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-904(1) (Reissue 2016), a Class I misdemeanor.
At the October 16, 2018, plea hearing, Seaman pled guilty to all the charges of the amended information in the second burglary case. The events recited by the State in the factual basis for that case show that in July 2018, Seaman was involved in the theft of a vehicle and various items of personal property from three different garages. Police officers were called to one of the locations while Seaman and another individual were in a garage removing items. The two men ran from the officers, and Seaman engaged in a struggle with one of the officers before being arrested.
As with the first burglary case, the district court accepted Seaman's pleas in the second burglary case, finding him guilty of the charges, and Seaman signed a drug court bond at a later hearing.
The State filed alleged drug court violations in both cases, and a termination hearing was held before the district court on April 24, 2019. The State presented testimony from Seaman's drug court supervision officer, and the court received various exhibits offered by the State. Seaman offered testimony from his mother and also testified in his own behalf.
Jesseca Doetker-Parker (Parker) had been supervising Seaman in the drug court program since October 2018. According to Parker, the drug court violations had been filed against Seaman because he had been cited for assault, had not answered all the questions of his supervision officer honestly, had resided or stayed in a place not approved by the drug court, and had not followed the rules of the drug court handbook.
Parker testified that on March 13, 2019, Seaman notified her that he had been cited for assault. Seaman also told Parker that he was going to the victim's house to get the victim "to tell the truth," and Parker told him not to do so. Seaman objected to the State's offer of the police reports for the assault investigation, which were reviewed by Parker in her assessment of the matter. Seaman's attorney argued that the reports were hearsay within hearsay if offered for the truth stated therein. He stated, however, that he would not object if the reports were being offered for the limited purpose of their effect on Parker and her decision to proceed with the drug court violation. The State argued that while the reports were something Parker considered, the State was also offering them for the truth, because the rules of evidence do not apply at a drug court violation hearing. The district court overruled Seaman's objection and received the reports.
Seaman also objected to the State's offer of photographs of the injuries of the assault victim on the basis of foundation. During voir dire by Seaman's attorney, Parker stated that she was not familiar with the victim, did not take the photographs, and did not know who took them. Upon further questioning by the State, Parker testified that she thought she had received the photographs from the police, that she understood them to be photographs taken as part of the assault investigation, and that she had reviewed and considered them prior to the drug court violation hearing. Seaman made the same objection when the State reoffered the photographs, but the district court overruled the objection. The court also received another exhibit, without objection, showing the mapped area of where the assault was alleged to have occurred.
Parker spoke with Seaman the day after the assault, and Seaman completed a written statement, which statement was received into evidence. In the statement, Seaman detailed his whereabouts on the day in question, asserted that his mother dropped him off at work at a particular time, and denied assaulting anyone.
Parker also testified about text messages and other information from Seaman's cell phone relevant to the drug court violations. On March 26, 2019, Parker found text messages on Seaman's phone, indicating that he was using "mushrooms" and "acid" and mentioning that these are substances for which the drug court does not test. The recipient of these messages was reportedly a coworker of Seaman's, and some of her responses via text and/or on a social media application showed "large amounts of marijuana." Parker also found text messages showing Seaman's contact with people whom he was not supposed to have contact, and she found evidence that Seaman had deleted someone from a social media application on his phone. According to Parker, Seaman was not allowed to delete anything from his phone. One of the people Seaman was contacting was his child's mother, who was actively using drugs. He was also contacting his child's grandmother, whom he had been told previously to stop contacting after it was discovered that she was also actively using drugs. Because Seaman's child was residing with the grandmother, Parker spoke to Seaman about "having a third party make those exchanges." Parker also found evidence that Seaman was contacting the victim of the assault, after he had been told not to on several occasions, including by the drug court judge.
Parker also testified about the allegations of Seaman's not answering her questions truthfully and residing in an unapproved location. Parker testified that when she examined Seaman's phone during a meeting, she asked him about a certain phone number. Seaman initially told her that the number belonged to his child's grandmother, but he eventually admitted that it belonged to the child's mother. Parker also testified that although Seaman was not approved to live with the grandmother, and had been told that he was not allowed to do so, certain messages on his phone suggested that he would go to the grandmother's after checking in at his approved residence. When Parker inquired, Seaman told her that he would go to the grandmother's residence after work, but he denied living there.
The district court received a copy of the handbook for the drug court program, as well as a written statement from Seaman that Parker asked him to make after she went through his phone and found "several violations." Parker testified that drug court participants received the handbook, which explains the expectations for the program, "at intake" and that they "go over it" during orientation. Participants are also given a quiz to verify their understanding of the program. The handbook contains rules regarding the progressive sanctions that may be imposed for violations of the bond conditions. According to Parker, Seaman violated the handbook rule that he was not to delete anything off of his phone, and she testified further about the text messages she found and Seaman's contact with prohibited individuals, including the assault victim. In Seaman's statement, he admitted to having been "dishonest about a few things," such as his contact with the individuals discussed above. He denied having used any illegal drugs or alcohol since his relapse with alcohol that occurred in December 2018 and claimed that his text message about drug use was "just another lie to try & sound cool & get something from this person." As to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cox
...STANDARD OF REVIEW Termination from a drug court program is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. State v. Seaman, 28 Neb. App. 667, 947 N.W.2d 589 (2020). A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly d......