State v. Pathod, S-03-1410.

Decision Date14 January 2005
Docket NumberNo. S-03-1410.,S-03-1410.
Citation690 NW 2d 784,269 Neb. 155
PartiesSTATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLANT, v. JAMES Y. PATHOD, APPELLEE.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

Gail E. Collins, Deputy Madison County Attorney, for appellant.

Tom D. Hockabout, of Moyer, Moyer, Egley, Fullner & Warnemunde, for appellee.

HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.

CONNOLLY, J.

The State of Nebraska filed an application for leave to docket an appeal under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Reissue 1995). The issue is whether a district court, when sentencing a defendant, must advise and provide written notification of the requirements of Nebraska's Sex Offender Registration Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001 et seq. (Cum. Supp. 2002). We determine that the court must provide written notification at sentencing. It also must provide copies of the notification and journal entry to various parties. But we also conclude that the failure to do so was harmless because the defendant signed a notice the day after sentencing and had completed serving his sentence when this appeal was heard. The State's exception is sustained.

BACKGROUND

The State charged the appellee, James Y. Pathod, with one count of sexual assault in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-320(1)(a) (Reissue 1995). At arraignment, the district court advised Pathod of the Act's requirements. Pathod pled no contest, and sentencing was set for a later date.

The record does not show that the district court informed Pathod of the Act's requirements at sentencing. The day after sentencing, however, Pathod signed a notification of registration responsibilities under the Act. That notification was also signed by the district court judge. The record shows—and the State's attorney confirmed at oral argument—that Pathod has completed serving his sentence.

The State timely filed an application for leave to docket an appeal under § 29-2315.01. The district court signed the application, and the application was filed in this court.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The State assigns that the district court erred when at sentencing it failed to advise and provide written notification to Pathod of his duty to register under the Act.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Campbell v. Omaha Police & Fire Ret. Sys., 268 Neb. 281, 682 N.W.2d 259 (2004).

ANALYSIS

The State argues that the court had a duty to inform Pathod, in writing, at sentencing about his duty to register under the Act. The State further contends that because the court failed to inform Pathod about the Act that the cause should be remanded for resentencing.

Section 29-4007 provides:

(1) When sentencing a person convicted of a registrable offense under section 29-4003, the court shall:
(a) Provide written notification of the duty to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act at the time of sentencing to any defendant who has pleaded guilty or has been found guilty of a registrable offense under section 29-4003. . . .
. . . .
(b) Require the defendant to read and sign a form stating that the duty of the defendant to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act has been explained;
(c) Retain a copy of the written notification signed by the defendant; and
. . . .
A copy of the signed, written notification and the journal entry of the court shall be provided to the county attorney, the defendant, the sex offender registration and community notification division of the Nebraska State Patrol, and the county sheriff of the county in which the defendant resides or is temporarily domiciled.
. . . .
(3)(a) The Department of Correctional Services or a city or county correctional or jail facility shall provide written notification of the duty to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act to any person committed to its custody for a registrable offense under section 29-4003 prior to the person's release from incarceration.

[2,3] Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Woodhouse Ford v. Laflan, 268 Neb. 722, 687 N.W.2d 672 (2004). As a general rule, the word "shall" is considered mandatory and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. Spaghetti Ltd. Partnership v. Wolfe, 264 Neb. 365, 647 N.W.2d 615 (2002). See, also, State v. Rodriguez, 11 Neb. App. 819, 660 N.W.2d 901 (2003) (construing term "shall" in § 29-4005 of Act).

[4] Here, the Act's plain language states that when sentencing a person, the court "shall" provide written notification and copies of the notification and corresponding journal entry to various parties. Thus, we determine that the Act's requirements are mandatory.

Pathod argues, however, that because he was in county jail, the duty to inform him of the Act shifted to jail personnel under § 29-4007(3)(a). We disagree. The Act does not shift the burden to notify. Instead, it requires multiple entities to provide notification. Thus, the Act required the court to provide notification at sentencing and jail personnel to provide additional notification before Pathod was released from incarceration.

The record, however, does not contain a journal entry showing that written notification was given...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Pangborn
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • July 26, 2013
    ...v. Subczynski, 411 Mich. 459, 307 N.W.2d 677 (1981) (per curiam). 73. See, e.g., U.S. v. Baker, supra note 61; State v. Lord, supra note 14. 74.State v. Pathod, 269 Neb. 155, 690 N.W.2d 784 (2005). 75.State v. Ford, 279 Neb. 453, 778 N.W.2d 473 (2010). 76.Id. 77.State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703......
  • State v. Hense
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • August 1, 2008
    ...As a general rule, the word "shall" is considered mandatory and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. State v. Pathod, 269 Neb. 155, 690 N.W.2d 784 (2005). Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the first sentence is that it is mandatory that the court revoke the operator's lic......
  • McCray v. Nebraska State Patrol
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • February 3, 2006
    ...of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. State v. Wester, 269 Neb. 295, 691 N.W.2d 536 (2005); State v. Pathod, 269 Neb. 155, 690 N.W.2d 784 (2005). It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither i......
  • State v. Griffin
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • October 28, 2005
    ...irrespective of the determination made by the court below. State v. Jonusas, 269 Neb. 644, 694 N.W.2d 651 (2005); State v. Pathod, 269 Neb. 155, 690 N.W.2d 784 (2005). Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT