State v. King, 90-1056
| Decision Date | 24 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1056,90-1056 |
| Citation | 239 Neb. 853,479 N.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. John W. KING, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Convictions: Sentences: Ordinances: Appeal and Error. When a defendant appeals a conviction and sentence under a municipal ordinance, claiming that the evidence is insufficient for a conviction and that a sentence is excessive, an appellate court's consideration of the assignments of error requires an examination of the specific ordinance involved.
2. Ordinances: Presumptions: Judicial Notice: Appeal and Error. When an ordinance charging an offense is not properly made a part of the record, an appellate court presumes the existence of a valid ordinance creating the offense charged, and an appellate court will not otherwise take judicial notice of the ordinance.
3. Ordinances: Presumptions: Appeal and Error. In the absence from the record of the applicable municipal ordinance, an appellate court presumes that the evidence sustains the findings of the trial court and that a sentence is within the limits set out in the applicable ordinance.
Barbara Thielen, of Fabian & Thielen, Omaha, for appellant.
Herbert M. Fitle, Omaha City Atty., and Gary P. Bucchino, Omaha City Prosecutor, and J. Michael Tesar, Omaha, for appellee.
Following a county court bench trial, John W. King was convicted of purposely or knowingly tampering with or damaging the property of another. The property damaged was a truck. King was given a 75-day jail sentence.
Upon King's appeal to the district court for Douglas County, his conviction and sentence were affirmed. The defendant then appealed to this court. Here, King has assigned as error that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and that the sentence imposed is excessive. We affirm.
King was convicted of violating a municipal ordinance of the city of Omaha. The penalty was also set out by ordinance. When a defendant appeals a conviction and sentence under a municipal ordinance, claiming that the evidence is insufficient for a conviction and that a sentence is excessive, an appellate court's consideration of the assignments of error requires an examination of the specific ordinance involved. See State v. Topping, 237 Neb. 130, 464 N.W.2d 799 (1991). The record before us does not include the ordinance under which King was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frederick C., In re
...set by the ordinance. Id. at 89, 579 N.W.2d at 573. See, also, State v. Buescher, 240 Neb. 908, 485 N.W.2d 192 (1992); State v. King, 239 Neb. 853, 479 N.W.2d 125 (1992). Thus, we hold that when police contact with an accused is precipitated by the accused's alleged violation of a municipal......
-
State v. Ruisi
...ordinance. State v. Hill, 254 Neb. 460, 577 N.W.2d 259 (1998); State v. Buescher, 240 Neb. 908, 485 N.W.2d 192 (1992); State v. King, 239 Neb. 853, 479 N.W.2d 125 (1992). This is known as the "ordinance rule" and normally disposes of an appeal when the record does not contain the applicable......
-
State v. Lewis, S-90-1236
...the findings of the trial court and that a sentence is within the limits set out in the applicable ordinance. State v. King, 239 Neb. 853, 854, 479 N.W.2d 125, 126 (1992). See, also, State v. Topping, 237 Neb. 130, 464 N.W.2d 799 (1991); State v. Cottingham, 226 Neb. 270, 410 N.W.2d 498 (19......
-
State v. Roebuck
...court's consideration of the assignments of error requires an examination of the specific ordinance involved. State v. King , 239 Neb. 853, 479 N.W.2d 125 (1992). Roebuck was charged with violating Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.12.010, which provides as follows:a. It shall be unlawful for any perso......