State v. Ettleman
Decision Date | 12 July 2019 |
Docket Number | No. S-17-782.,S-17-782. |
Citation | 303 Neb. 581,930 N.W.2d 538 |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Tammy J. ETTLEMAN, appellant. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
NATURE OF CASE
We granted the State’s petition for further review of the decision of the Nebraska Court of Appeals which reversed Tammy J. Ettleman’s plea-based conviction for felony child abuse. The Court of Appeals concluded that the factual basis presented by the State was not sufficient to support Ettleman’s no contest plea and therefore "reverse[d] the order of the district court [for Saunders County] which accepted that no contest plea and ... vacate[d] Ettleman’s conviction for felony child abuse." State v. Ettleman , No. A-17-782, 2018 WL 3902173 at *5 (Neb. App. Aug. 14, 2018) ( ). Ettleman had also pled no contest to a count of attempted possession of a controlled substance, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that plea-based conviction. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned that "because the district court ordered only one sentence for both convictions," it must vacate the sentence and remand the matter for resentencing on Ettleman’s conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance. Id. at *1.
The State claims on further review that the Court of Appeals erred both when it found there was not a sufficient factual basis for the plea to felony child abuse and when it "suggest[ed]" that Ettleman could not be subject to retrial on the child abuse charge upon remand.
We conclude that the Court of Appeals did not err when it found that there was not a sufficient factual basis for the felony child abuse plea. However, we determine that the Court of Appeals erred in its disposition, because it focused only on the conviction for felony child abuse rather than setting forth a remedy focused on the entire plea agreement. We therefore affirm in part and in part reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and we remand the cause to the Court of Appeals with directions as set forth herein.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In its memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals set forth the facts of this case for which we find support in the record as follows:
State v. Ettleman , No. A-17-782, 2018 WL 3902173 at *1-2 (Neb. App. Aug. 14, 2018) ( ). To clarify the sentencing, we note that in its order, the district court set forth the length and terms of probation as being applicable to both convictions but it stated that the jail time was specifically applicable to the conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance.
Ettleman claimed on appeal to the Court of Appeals that the district court erred when it found that the State had presented a sufficient factual basis to support her plea of no contest to felony child abuse. We have long held that a factual basis is required to show that a plea was made understandingly and knowingly, see State v. Irish , 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986), and that a challenge to the understandingly and voluntary nature of the plea can be made on appeal, see State v. Mason , 187 Neb. 675, 193 N.W.2d 576 (1972). The Court of Appeals found merit to Ettleman’s claim that the factual basis was insufficient. The Court of Appeals first rejected the State’s argument that Ettleman had waived a challenge to the factual basis when she did not object to the factual basis in the district court. The Court of Appeals cited our decision in State v. Wilkinson , 293 Neb. 876, 881 N.W.2d 850 (2016), in which we reasoned that a sufficient factual basis is a requirement for a finding that a plea was entered into understandingly and voluntarily and that, because one of the limited challenges that may be made to a plea-based conviction on appeal is whether the plea was understandingly and voluntarily made, a defendant does not waive a challenge to the factual basis when he or she enters a plea. See, State v. Clemens , 300 Neb. 601, 915 N.W.2d 550 (2018) ; State v. Schiesser , 24 Neb. App. 407, 888 N.W.2d 736 (2016). The State does not challenge this ruling on further review.
The Court of Appeals then identified the elements of felony child abuse as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707(1) (Reissue 2016), which provides in relevant part:
Under § 28-707(4), if the child abuse offense is committed knowingly and intentionally and does not result in serious bodily injury or death, it is a Class IIIA felony.
The Court of Appeals determined that based on the plain language of § 28-707(1), the factual basis that was set forth by the State at Ettleman’s plea hearing did not show that Ettleman knowingly and intentionally placed her son in a situation that endangered his life or physical or mental health, nor did it show a basis for any of the other ways set forth in the statute for committing child abuse. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that it could look beyond the factual basis given at the plea hearing and consider other material when deciding whether a factual basis existed. The Court of Appeals therefore examined the presentence investigation report and noted that it contained further details regarding the events that gave rise to the charges against Ettleman.
After considering the record as a whole, including information in the presentence investigation report, the Court of Appeals stated:
Ettleman took her son to her friend’s house at approximately 8:30 in the evening, and immediately left when she realized her friend was not home. While we acknowledge that Ettleman went to the home to sell prescription medication, an illegal action, we fail to see, based on these facts, how Ettleman knowingly and intentionally exposed her child’s life or physical or mental health to danger or the peril of probable harm or loss.
State v. Ettleman , No. A-17-782, 2018 WL 3902173 at *4 (Neb. App. Aug. 14, 2018) ( ). The Court of Appeals concluded that the record did not show a sufficient factual basis to meet the elements under § 28-707(1) and (4) and that therefore, the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Morton
...and an appellate court will reverse the trial court's determination only in the case of an abuse of discretion. State v. Ettleman , 303 Neb. 581, 930 N.W.2d 538 (2019). A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly deprivi......
-
State v. Rillo
...39 (mem.) (upholding reinstatement of charges dismissed pursuant to plea agreement after guilty plea held invalid); State v. Ettleman, 303 Neb. 581, 930 N.W.2d 538, 548-49 (2019) (reversing convictions for all counts of plea agreement after determining one plea lacked sufficient factual bas......
-
State v. Rillo
...39 (mem.) (upholding reinstatement of charges dismissed pursuant to plea agreement after guilty plea held invalid); State v. Ettleman, 930 N.W.2d 538, 548-49 (Neb. 2019) (reversing convictions for all counts of plea agreement after determining one plea lacked sufficient factual basis "in or......
-
Korth v. Luther
...§ 36-702(2)(i).51 See § 36-709(a).52 See § 36-707(4).53 Chicago Lumber Co. of Omaha v. Selvera, supra note 8.54 State v. Ettleman, 303 Neb. 581, 930 N.W.2d 538 (2019).55 Lincoln Lumber Co. v. Fowler, 248 Neb. 221, 533 N.W.2d 898 (1995).56 See White v. Kohout, 286 Neb. 700, 839 N.W.2d 252 (2......