State v. Baxter, 83-732
| Decision Date | 05 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-732,83-732 |
| Citation | 355 N.W.2d 514,218 Neb. 414 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Thomas BAXTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Prior Convictions: Right to Counsel. A transcript of conviction which fails to show on its face that counsel was afforded or the right waived cannot be used for enhancement purposes.
2. Prior Convictions: Appeal and Error. Objections to the validity of the judgment other than those pertaining to inadequate waiver of counsel must be raised by direct appeal or in a separate proceeding commenced for the express purpose of setting aside the judgment alleged to be invalid.
Dennis R. Keefe, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Scott P. Helvie, Lincoln, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen. and G. Roderic Anderson, Lincoln, for appellee.
Upon a plea of guilty the defendant was convicted in the district court of driving while under the influence of alcoholic liquor on June 20, 1982. Following an enhancement hearing he was found to have committed a third offense and was sentenced to 120 days in jail, fined $300 and costs, and his license revoked for 1 year. The prosecution was under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.07(3) (Reissue 1978), prior to the 1982 amendment.
The defendant has appealed and contends that the records of his prior convictions offered at the enhancement hearing were insufficient to support a finding that the offense charged in this case was a third offense.
At the enhancement hearing the State offered records of prior convictions on April 25, 1977; April 27, 1977; and April 19, 1978. The trial court sustained objections to exhibit 1, the record of the April 25, 1977, conviction, but received exhibits 2 and 3, the records of the other two offenses. The defendant contends that these exhibits should not have been received in evidence because they fail to show compliance with the requirements set out in State v. Tweedy, 209 Neb. 649, 309 N.W.2d 94 (1981).
Exhibit 2 is a certified copy of a record of the municipal court of the city of Lincoln, Nebraska, and includes a uniform citation and complaint charging the defendant with "operat[ing] a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic liquors" on April 26, 1977. The complaint was later amended to include "second offense." The record shows the defendant was represented by the public defender.
Exhibit 3 is a certified copy of a record of the county court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, concerning proceedings on a second DWI charge occurring on March 27, 1978. The record shows the defendant was found to be an indigent, the public defender was appointed to represent him, and the public defender appeared in court with the defendant at the time his guilty plea was accepted and the sentence imposed.
These exhibits clearly show that the defendant was represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings in both cases.
In State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446, 449, 329 N.W.2d 564, 566 (1983), we said:
We agree that in an enhancement proceeding, a defendant should not be able to relitigate the former conviction, and to that extent such conviction cannot be collaterally attacked. However, under the present circumstances, the burden remains with the State to prove the prior convictions. This cannot be done by proving a judgment which would have been invalid to support a sentence of imprisonment in the first instance. Baldasar v. Illinois [446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980) ], supra. Where a record is silent as to a defendant's opportunity for counsel, we may not presume that such rights were respected. Burgett v. Texas [389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967) ], supra; State v. Tweedy, supra. A defendant's objection to the introduction of a transcript of conviction which fails to show on its face that counsel was afforded or the right waived does not constitute a collateral attack on the former judgment.
The defendant argues that the Smith case stands for the proposition that a constitutionally invalid prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Louthan
...State v. Hamblin, 223 Neb. 469, 390 N.W.2d 533 (1986); State v. Fraser, 222 Neb. 862, 387 N.W.2d 695 (1986); and State v. Baxter, 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984), hold that a prior conviction sought to be used for enhancement in a driving under the influence prosecution can be collatera......
-
State v. Oliver
...501 (1985); State v. Soe, 219 Neb. 797, 366 N.W.2d 439 (1985); State v. Jones, 219 Neb. 184, 362 N.W.2d 58 (1985); State v. Baxter, 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984); State v. Ziemba, 216 Neb. 612, 346 N.W.2d 208 In State v. Gonzales, 218 Neb. 43, 352 N.W.2d 571 (1984), the defendant was ......
-
LeGrand v. State, s. A-93-1086
...Proceeding" A closer reading of Davis and Fraser unveils a slow erosion of the Smith rule. Each of those cases cites State v. Baxter, 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984), for the highlighted portion of the following The defendant argues that the Smith case stands for the proposition that a ......
-
State v. Crane, S-90-1085
...914 (1989); State v. Davis, 224 Neb. 518, 398 N.W.2d 729 (1987); State v. Benzel, 220 Neb. 466, 370 N.W.2d 501 (1985); State v. Baxter, 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984). We do, however, allow challenges to prior plea-based convictions offered for enhancement purposes based on the transcr......
-
Nebraska Plea-based Convictions Practice: a Primer and Commentary
...Fletcher, 8 Neb. App. 498, 596 N.W.2d 717 (1999). 585. 217 Neb. 747, 350 N.W.2d 571 (1984) (involving DUI third offense guilty plea). 586. 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984). 587. See id. at 416-17, 355 N.W.2d at 516; see also State v. Jones, 219 Neb. 184, 18485, 362 N.W.2d 58, 58-59 (1985......