State v. Smith
Decision Date | 04 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 81-672,81-672 |
Citation | 213 Neb. 446,329 N.W.2d 564 |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Paul L. SMITH, Appellant. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Prior Convictions: Proof. In a proceeding to enhance the punishment because of prior convictions, the burden remains on the State to prove such convictions.
2. Judgments: Prior Convictions: Proof. A judgment of conviction which would have been invalid to support a sentence of imprisonment in the first instance is not valid to enhance the punishment in a subsequent case.
3. Prior Convictions: Right to Counsel: Proof. That defendant's right to counsel was honored in a prior conviction may not be proved by a silent record.
4. Prior Convictions: Collateral Attack: Case Overruled. At an enhancement proceeding, a defendant's objection to the reception in evidence of a transcript of a former conviction which fails to show on its face that counsel was afforded or the right waived does not constitute a collateral attack on such prior conviction. To the extent that State v. Orosco, 199 Neb. 532, 260 N.W.2d 303 (1977), and State v. Voight, 206 Neb. 829, 295 N.W.2d 112 (1980), conflict with this holding, they are overruled.
Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Bennett G. Hornstein, Asst. Public Defender, Lincoln, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen. and Patrick T. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
The defendant, Paul L. Smith, was found guilty by the District Court of third offense driving while intoxicated, a violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 39-669.07 (Reissue 1978), and sentenced accordingly. He has appealed to this court and assigns as error the reception into evidence, for enhancement purposes, of certified copies of two prior driving-while-intoxicated convictions. These transcripts of judgment failed to disclose whether, at the time of such convictions, the defendant was either represented by counsel or had waived the right to counsel.
There is no question concerning the basic conviction which resulted from a jury trial. However, at the hearing to determine whether or not the conviction was a third offense, the only things offered in evidence were two Omaha Municipal Court form transcripts of judgment which indicated the defendant had pleaded nolo contendere in each instance and upon "trial" was found guilty. One offense was in 1972 and the other in 1973. As we have stated above, nothing appears on either transcript to show if the defendant was represented by counsel or if he had waived such representation.
In State v. Tweedy, 209 Neb. 649, 654-55, 309 N.W.2d 94, 98 (1981), we said: (Emphasis supplied.)
By per curiam opinion in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), the Supreme Court held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction may not be used to enhance the penalty and convert a subsequent misdemeanor into a felony with a prison term. The concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Marshall perhaps best explains the rationale of the Court. " '[I]ncarceration was so severe a sanction that it should not be imposed as a result of a criminal trial unless an indigent defendant had been offered appointed counsel to assist in his defense,' [citation omitted].
Id. at 226-28, 100 S.Ct. at 1587-88.
We recognize that in State v. Voight, 206 Neb. 829, 295 N.W.2d 112 (1980), we held that in a proceeding to show a prior conviction for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Louthan
...the validity of a prior plea-based conviction. In State v. Voight, 206 Neb. 829, 295 N.W.2d 112 (1980), overruled, State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983), we held that a defendant charged with a third-offense DUI under an earlier version of our current DUI statute had no right ......
-
State v. Yelli
...appellate court may not presume that such rights were respected. State v. Ristau, 245 Neb. 52, 511 N.W.2d 83 (1994); State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983). Since the record in the prior paternity adjudications is silent, we cannot assume that Yelli was represented by or waived......
-
State v. Huff
...479, 778 N.W.2d 733 (2010). 75. See, State v. Orosco, 199 Neb. 532, 260 N.W.2d 303 (1977), overruled on other grounds, State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983); State v. Cash, 3 Neb.App. 319, 526 N.W.2d 447 (1995). 76. See, e.g., State v. Bishop, 224 Neb. 522, 399 N.W.2d 271 (198......
-
State v. Gray
...impose the burden of proof on the State to show the validity of the prior plea-based conviction. See, Reimers, supra; State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983); State v. Jackson, 4 Neb.App. 413, 544 N.W.2d 379 (1996); State v. Watkins, 4 Neb.App. 356, 543 N.W.2d 470 (1996). In Sta......