State v. Russell, 90-429

• Decision Date: 14 February 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-429,90-429
• Citation: 479 N.W.2d 798,239 Neb. 979
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Earl C. RUSSELL, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 798

479 N.W.2d 798

239 Neb. 979

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Earl C. RUSSELL, Appellant.

No. 90-429.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Feb. 14, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Postconviction: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of a postconviction proceeding, the findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.

2. Postconviction. A court is not required to grant an evidential hearing on a motion for postconviction relief which alleges only conclusions of law or fact; nor is an evidential hearing required under the Nebraska Postconviction Act when (1) the motion for postconviction relief does not contain sufficient factual allegations concerning a denial or violation of constitutional rights affecting the judgment against the movant, or (2) notwithstanding proper pleadings of facts in a motion for postconviction relief, the files and records in the movant's case do not show a denial or violation of the movant's constitutional rights causing the judgment against the movant to be void or voidable.

3. Pleas: Waiver: Effectiveness of Counsel. Although normally a voluntary guilty plea waives every defense to a charge, whether the defense is procedural, statutory, or constitutional, a court will consider a claim that the guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel.

4. Postconviction: Proof. One moving for postconviction relief must allege facts which, if proved, constitute a denial or violation of his or her rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution.

5. Postconviction. A motion for postconviction relief must allege facts.

6. Records: Appeal and Error. It is incumbent on the party appealing to present a record which supports the errors assigned; absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court is to be affirmed.

7. Postconviction: Sentences. Excessive sentence is not a proper subject for postconviction relief.

8. Sentences: Appeal and Error. As a general rule, a sentence imposed within the limits prescribed by statute will not be set aside as excessive absent an abuse of discretion.

9. Sentences. There is no requirement that the sentencing court compare the defendant's case with all other similarly charged felonies prior to imposing sentence.

Earl C. Russell, pro se.

Don Stenberg, Atty.Gen., and J. Kirk Brown, Lincoln, for appellee.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ.

HASTINGS, Chief Justice.

Defendant, Earl C. Russell, appeals from the order denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for postconviction relief brought in the district court pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-3001 et seq. (Reissue 1989). We affirm.

In an appeal of a postconviction proceeding, "the findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous." State v. Blank, 239 Neb. 188, 190, 474 N.W.2d 689, 691 (1991). Additionally:

" 'A court is not required to grant an evidential hearing on a motion for postconviction relief which alleges only conclusions of law or fact; nor is an evidential hearing required under the Nebraska Postconviction Act when (1) the motion for postconviction relief does not contain sufficient factual allegations concerning a denial or violation of constitutional rights affecting the judgment against the movant, or (2) notwithstanding proper pleadings of facts in a motion for postconviction relief, the files and records in the movant's case do not show a denial or violation of the movant's constitutional rights causing the judgment against the movant to be void or voidable.' "

State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 538-39, 455 N.W.2d 821, 824 (1990).

On December 2, 1983, the defendant pleaded guilty to a two-count information charging him in count I with assault in the first degree, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-308(1) (Reissue 1989), and in count II with robbery, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-324(1) (Reissue 1989). Before accepting this plea, the trial court questioned him extensively to make sure he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights in pleading guilty. The trial court explained to Russell the possible pleas he might enter. The court established that the defendant was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The court established that Russell understood and waived his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, his right to a public trial by jury, his rights to confront witnesses and to compulsory process to procure their attendance, his right against self-incrimination, and his right to the suppression of illegally obtained confessions. Russell acknowledged his understanding of all these rights. He also answered, "Yes," when the court asked if he understood and was voluntarily waiving his rights. The trial court also advised Russell of the maximum sentences he faced and determined that he understood the possible sentences. The trial court then found a factual basis existed upon which to accept the pleas of guilty, accepted them, and found defendant guilty on both counts. Russell was sentenced on February 27, 1984, to 6 to 20 years on count I and 15 to 50 years on count II, the sentences to run consecutively. The statutory penalties provided for these crimes are imprisonment for 1 to 20 years and 1 to 50 years, respectively.

As his assignments of error, Russell claims (1) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to inform the trial court of a plea agreement; (2) counsel was ineffective in raising only frivolous issues on appeal; (3) the trial court imposed sentences which were cruel and unusual, in violation of his right to equal protection; and (4) the trial court failed to consider Russell's lack of education and his mental instability in sentencing him.

Although normally a voluntary guilty plea waives every defense to a charge, whether the defense is procedural, statutory, or constitutional, a court will consider a claim that the guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Stranghoener, 212 Neb. 203, 322 N.W.2d 407 (1982).

Russell's first assignment of error depends upon the truth or falsity of the allegation that there was a plea agreement between his trial counsel and the State which was not brought to the trial court's attention. After determining that the defendant was pleading guilty because he was guilty, the trial court asked if a plea agreement had been reached:

THE COURT: Mr. McKenney, has there been any plea negotiations in this case and if so what were they?

MR. McKENNEY [deputy county attorney]: None, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Pruss?

MR. PRUSS [Russell's counsel]: That's correct.

THE COURT: And is that your understanding, Mr. Russell, that there has been no plea negotiations in this case?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

As may be seen from the portion of the bill of exceptions quoted above, the primary evidence that no agreement existed comes from Russell himself. In addition to the statement made above, Russell twice stated that no promises had been made to him.

Russell now argues on appeal that his trial counsel advised him to mislead the trial court by stating that no promises had been made nor plea agreement reached. This "fact" was not alleged in Russell's postconviction motion. "One moving for postconviction relief must allege facts which, if proved, constitute a denial or violation of his or her rights under the Nebraska or federal Constitution." State v. Otey, 236 Neb. 915, 925, 464 N.W.2d 352, 360 (1991). It follows that the postconviction court cannot make any determination based upon a fact not presented, and therefore this "fact" cannot be considered by this court on appeal.

This court faced an assigned error similar to the one Russell now complains of in State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 455 N.W.2d 821 (1990). There, a defendant seeking postconviction relief alleged that he pleaded guilty...