State v. Seaman, 90-104
| Decision Date | 19 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-104,90-104 |
| Citation | 237 Neb. 916,468 N.W.2d 121 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Darren W. SEAMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Drunk Driving: Sentences: Probation and Parole. An order of probation for a person convicted of third-offense driving while under the influence of alcoholic liquor may include a provision not to operate a motor vehicle for any reason whatsoever during the entire term of probation.
2. Statutes: Intent. In construing a statute, the Nebraska Supreme Court must look at the statutory objective to be accomplished the problem to be remedied, or the purpose to be served, and then place on the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves the purpose of the statute, rather than a construction defeating the statutory purpose.
Clay B. Statmore, Lincoln, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Wynn Clemmer, Lincoln, for appellee.
The defendant, Darren W. Seaman, was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, third offense, and careless driving and was sentenced to 5 years' probation. As a part of the order of probation the trial court ordered the defendant not to operate a motor vehicle for any reason whatsoever during the entire term of probation.
The defendant appealed to the district court, contending the county court had exceeded its jurisdiction by suspending his driving privileges for 5 years. The district court affirmed the trial court's sentence, stating:
[T]he alternative to the judge was to suspend Mr. Seaman for 15 years and Mr. Seaman could have been sentenced to jail for up to six months and fined up to five hundred dollars.
So, considering the statutory penalties that were available to the judge, I cannot find--I do not find that it's an abuse of discretion for him to try probation with this five-year denial of driving license privileges.
The defendant has appealed to this court and assigns as error the district court's finding that the county court did not abuse its discretion by including in the order of probation the requirement that the defendant not operate a motor vehicle for the entire 5-year period of probation.
Relying on Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.07(c) (Reissue 1988), the defendant contends that because he was sentenced to probation, his driver's license could have been suspended for only 1 year. Section 39-669.07(c), which is now codified at § 39-669.07(2)(c) (Cum.Supp.1990), provides that if a person, upon conviction of driving under the influence of alcoholic liquor,
has had two or more convictions under this section in the ten years prior to the date of the current conviction ... such person shall be guilty of a Class W misdemeanor, and the court shall, as part of the judgment of conviction, order such person not to drive any motor vehicle in the State of Nebraska for any purpose for a period of fifteen years from the date ordered by the court and shall order that the operator's license of such person be revoked for a like period....
If the court places such person on probation or suspends the sentence for any reason, the court shall, as one of the conditions of probation or sentence suspension, order such person not to drive any motor vehicle in the State of Nebraska for any purpose for a period of one year, and such order of probation shall include as one of its conditions confinement in the city or county jail for seven days.
A Class W misdemeanor for third-offense driving while intoxicated is punishable by 3 to 6 months' imprisonment and a $500 fine. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-106(1) (Reissue 1989).
The defendant asserts that his license should have been suspended for only 1 year because the trial court placed him on probation. He argues that if the Legislature had intended the court could revoke his license for more than 1 year while placing him on probation, the statute would have read that as one of the conditions of probation, the court shall order such person not to drive " 'for a period of at least one year.' " Brief for appellant at 4.
In 1982, the Legislature amended § 39-669.07 by adding the language requiring that as a condition of probation for third-offense driving while intoxicated, the court must order a defendant not to drive in Nebraska for any purpose for a period of 1 year.
The primary purpose of the 1982 amendment was to get drunk drivers off the road. See Judiciary Committee Hearing, L.B. 568, 87th Leg., 2d Sess. (Jan. 19, 1982).
In floor debate on the 1982 amendment it was stated:
The judge is not required to permanently suspend. All the law requires, all the bill requires as currently written is a mandatory one year suspension for third offenders. So the judge has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Joubert
...which best achieves its purpose, rather than a construction which will defeat the purpose. Saulsbury, supra; State v. Seaman, 237 Neb. 916, 468 N.W.2d 121 (1991). In construing a statute, the court must attempt to give effect to all of its parts, and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, o......
-
Bojanski v. Foley
...construction which best achieves its purpose, rather than a construction which will defeat the statutory purpose. State v. Seaman, 237 Neb. 916, 468 N.W.2d 121 (1991). We find that the Legislature intended to waive the State's immunity from suit, except when there is an exception specifical......
-
Wadman v. State
...construction which best achieves its purpose, rather than a construction which will defeat the statutory purpose. State v. Seaman, 237 Neb. 916, 468 N.W.2d 121 (1991). We find that the Legislature intended to waive the State's immunity from suit, except when there is an exception specifical......
-
State v. Cox
...which best achieves the purpose of the statute, rather than a construction defeating the statutory purpose. State v. Seaman, 237 Neb. 916, 468 N.W.2d 121 (1991). It is well established that a motion for directed verdict is properly granted only when there is a complete failure of evidence t......