State v. Collins
| Decision Date | 23 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. S-19-959.,S-19-959. |
| Citation | 950 N.W.2d 89,307 Neb. 581 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Miranda M. COLLINS, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Stephanie Flynn, of Stephanie Flynn Law, P.C., L.L.O., Lincoln, and Toni Wilson, Lincoln, of Leija Wilson Law, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Miranda M. Collins appeals the order of the district court for Lancaster County which affirmed her convictions and sentences in the county court for Lancaster County for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest and obstructing a police officer. Collins claims on appeal that the district court erred when it affirmed what she asserts was an excessive sentence imposed by the county court and when it affirmed the county court's order directing that her appearance bond be applied to fines and costs. She also claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel failed to present sufficient evidence and information at the sentencing hearing. We affirm the order of the district court which affirmed Collins’ convictions and sentences.
On March 22, 2019, Collins was arrested, and the State filed a complaint in the county court charging her with operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-905 (Reissue 2016). The State alleged, inter alia, that the offense was committed "in willful reckless operation of the motor vehicle," and the State therefore charged the offense as a Class IV felony pursuant to § 28-905(3). The factual basis presented by the State indicates that the charge arose from an incident in which, during a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Collins, the officer detected the odor of marijuana and asked Collins to step out of the vehicle so that the officer could conduct a search. Collins refused to step out of the vehicle, and instead, she rolled up her windows, locked the doors, and sped off in the vehicle. The county court found probable cause to detain Collins and set an appearance bond of "$7,500.00 Ten Percent." On March 25, Collins filed an appearance bond which stated that $750 had been deposited "in cash 90% of which shall be returned to the defendant upon appearance as required above and 10% of which shall be retained by the Clerk for bond costs."
On April 3, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, the State filed an amended complaint in which it reduced the charge of operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest to a Class I misdemeanor under § 28-905(2) and added a charge of obstructing a peace officer, a Class I misdemeanor, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-906 (Reissue 2016). Collins pled guilty to both charges, and the county court found a factual basis and found Collins guilty of both charges. That same day, after granting Collins a sentencing allocution, the county court ordered Collins to pay a fine of $750 on the conviction for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest and to pay a fine of $250 on the conviction for obstructing a peace officer. In connection with the conviction for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest, the county court also ordered that Collins’ driver's license be revoked for 1 year. The court ordered Collins to pay costs, and the court further ordered that after the $75 (representing 10 percent of the deposit) had been retained by the clerk, the $675 balance held on Collins’ appearance bond be applied to payment of the fines and costs imposed as part of her sentence.
On April 5, 2019, Collins’ counsel filed a motion for new trial in which he asserted that subsequent to the April 3 sentencing hearing, he had learned new information that, if he had known of it at the time of Collins’ sentencing, he would have offered for the court's consideration. Counsel characterized such information as "newly discovered evidence," which he alleged required a new trial. That same day, counsel also filed a motion to reconsider sentence in which counsel alleged that the "newly discovered evidence" required the court to reconsider the sentence imposed. Counsel's particular objection to the sentence focused on the revocation of Collins’ driver's license for 1 year.
In his affidavit, Collins’ counsel stated that in a separate case, Collins anticipated being bonded into drug court; that she risked losing her housing if she could not demonstrate participation in a drug treatment program; and that a prompt resolution of the present case was necessary to avoid delaying her entry into drug court in the other case. Counsel stated that the urgency to resolve the present case limited the time he had to prepare with Collins for sentencing and that therefore, he did not learn certain relevant information about Collins before the April 3, 2019, plea and sentencing hearing. Counsel asserted the new information was generally that Collins was a single mother and a student who had no family or friends who could help her with transportation and that if her driver's license were revoked, she would not be able to transport her children to school or transport herself to attend classes.
After a hearing, the county court denied both Collins’ motion for new trial and her motion to reconsider sentence. At the hearing on the motions, the county court stated that if it "had known some of these things beforehand, [it] probably would have likely ruled differently," but it did not think that it could "go back and change it at this point in time based on these motions the way they're brought before the Court." In response to Collins’ query regarding the bond, the county court stated that it did not think it could be returned to her because the bond had "already been applied." In the order denying the motions, the county court stated that the appearance bond was to remain applied to fines and costs and not returned to Collins.
Collins appealed her convictions and sentences to the district court. In her statement of errors, Collins claimed that the county court (1) imposed an excessive sentence when it revoked her driver's license and (2) erred when it ordered that her bond be applied to fines and costs.
After a hearing, the district court entered an order which affirmed Collins’ convictions and sentences. Regarding Collins’ claim of excessive sentence, the district court noted that the sentence of a $750 fine and a 1-year license revocation for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest was within the statutory limits. The district court noted that Collins had requested that she be sentenced to probation rather than imprisonment to facilitate her participation in drug court in a separate case. Because the county court had declined to impose either imprisonment or probation, which would have been within the statutory limits, the district court found the sentence of a fine and revocation to be lenient considering the nature of the offense. The district court determined that the county court's sentence was not based on reasons that were untenable or clearly against the evidence, and it concluded that the sentence imposed by the county court was not an abuse of discretion.
Regarding the county court's order to apply the bond to fines and costs, Collins argued that the order violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-901 (Cum. Supp. 2018) and case law interpreting that statute, which Collins asserted made it mandatory for the court to return 90 percent of the bond deposit to her. The district court noted, however, that subsequent to the case law cited by Collins, the Legislature had amended Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2206 (Reissue 2016) to allow a court to deduct fines or costs from a bond posted by the offender. The district court concluded that the county court appropriately exercised its discretion when it applied the bond deposit to fines and costs imposed in Collins’ sentence.
Collins appeals the district court's order which affirmed her convictions and sentences in the county court. The district court appointed new counsel to represent Collins on appeal.
Collins claims that the district court erred when it rejected her claims that (1) the county court imposed an excessive sentence for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest and (2) the county court erred when it ordered that her bond be applied to fines and costs. Collins also claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel in the county court because "counsel failed to present sufficient evidence and information for the [county court's] consideration in determining the proper sentence and thus her right to a fair sentencing hearing was prejudiced."
In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error or abuse of discretion. State v. Valentino , 305 Neb. 96, 939 N.W.2d 345 (2020). Both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on the record. Id. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court's inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id. But we independently review questions of law in appeals from the county court. Id. When deciding appeals from criminal convictions in county court, we apply the same standards of review that we apply to decide appeals from criminal convictions in district court. Id.
Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether a 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. State v. Canaday , 307 Neb. 407, 949 N.W.2d 348 (2020). Absent an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Malone
...U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1875, 207 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2020).37 See Clausen , supra note 35.38 See Parnell , supra note 4.39 State v. Collins , 307 Neb. 581, 950 N.W.2d 89 (2020). See, also, Shinn , supra note 34.40 See State v. Weathers , 304 Neb. 402, 935 N.W.2d 185 (2019). Accord Parnell , supra......
-
State v. Roebuck
...court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on the record. State v. Collins , 307 Neb. 581, 950 N.W.2d 89 (2020). When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court's inquiry is whether the decision conf......
-
State v. Morris
... ... proceeding would have been different. State v ... Clausen , 307 Neb. 968, 951 N.W.2d 764 (2020). A ... reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to ... undermine confidence in the outcome. State v ... Collins , 307 Neb. 581, 950 N.W.2d 89 (2020). With these ... governing principles in mind, we turn now to address ... Morris' claims that his trial counsel was ineffective ... (a) ... Failure to Pursue Motion to Quash ... Morris ... ...
-
State v. Webb
...v. Abernathy , 310 Neb. 880, 969 N.W.2d 871 (2022) ; State v. Billingsley , 309 Neb. 616, 961 N.W.2d 539 (2021).3 State v. Collins , 307 Neb. 581, 950 N.W.2d 89 (2020).4 Id.5 Id.6 State v. Lovvorn , 303 Neb. 844, 932 N.W.2d 64 (2019).7 State v. Chapman , 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (2020).......