State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 39827,39827 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. George Henry WILLIAMS, a/k/a Bill Knight, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Section 25--1912, R.R.S.1943, requires that an appeal from a final order be taken within 1 month.
2. An order placing a defendant on probation is a final and appealable order.
3. An order by a District Court purporting to suspend a sentence legally pronounced in a criminal action for the purpose of placing a defendant on probation is a nullity.
4. If the court finds that the probationer did violate a condition of his probation, it may revoke the probation and impose on the offender such new sentence as might have been imposed originally for the crime of which he was convicted.
5. Section 29--2261, R.S.Supp., 1974, contemplates that when imposing sentence a judge should consider, among other things, the offender's history of delinquency or criminality. Offenses committed while on probation are a part of such a history.
George H. Williams, pro se.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Gary B. Schneider, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ., and KUNS, Retired District Judge.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of foregery and on November 3, 1972, was placed on probation. No appeal was taken from that sentence. On March 6, 1974, the order of probation was revoked following further criminal activities and the defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of 6 to 18 years. He appeals and assigns as error the involuntariness of his original guilty plea and the illegality of the sentence due to the court having considered offenses committed subsequent to the entry of the order of probation. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Section 25--1912, R.R.S.1943, requires that an appeal from a final order be taken within 1 month. An order placing a defendant on probation is a final and appealable order. See State v. Longmore, 178 Neb. 509, 134 N.W.2d 66. No appeal having been taken from the order of probation, the question of the voluntariness of the original guilty pleas cannot be considered.
Defendant asserts that he should have received his sentences immediately following his conviction on the forgery charges and that thereafter the sentences should have been suspended and probation granted. This procedure may be proper in some jurisdictions but does not conform with the Nebraska law. An order by a District Court purporting to suspend a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schulz
...regard to the 48 hours he had already served. See, State v. Osterman, 197 Neb. 727, 250 N.W.2d 654 (1977), and State v. Williams, 194 Neb. 483, 233 N.W.2d 772 (1975), which quote and rely on § 29-2268 in determining that sentences imposed following the revocation of probation were not The i......
-
Murphy v. State
...73, W.R.C.P. Suspension of sentence and placing on probation does not extend the time in which to take an appeal. State v. Williams, 1975, 194 Neb. 483, 233 N.W.2d 772, 773; People v. Pickett, 1974, 391 Mich. 305, 215 N.W.2d 695; State v. Ward, 1972, 108 Ariz. 288, 496 P.2d 588; People v. N......
-
State v. Kinney, 83-608
...or reject. Secondly, it is clear that an order placing a defendant on probation is a final and appealable order. See State v. Williams, 194 Neb. 483, 233 N.W.2d 772 (1975). Finally, our law is settled that a sentence validly imposed takes effect from the time it is pronounced, and a subsequ......
-
Wells, Matter of
...was a final order. Section 25--1912, R.R.S.1943, requires that an appeal from a final order be taken within 1 month. State v. Williams, 194 Neb. 483, 233 N.W.2d 772 (1975). Petitioner's attempt to attack the original commitment at the annual review hearing was a collateral attack which the ......