State v. Workman
| Decision Date | 29 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. A-12-888,A-12-888 |
| Citation | 857 N.W.2d 349 |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Mathew W. Workman, appellant. |
Patrick J. Boylan, Chief Deputy Sarpy County Public Defender, for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein for appellee.
1. Pleas: Appeal and Error.A trial court is given discretion as to whether to accept a guilty plea; an appellate court will overturn that decision only where there is an abuse of discretion.
2. Courts: Words and Phrases.Drug court is a postplea or postadjudicatory drug and alcohol intensive supervision treatment program for eligible offenders.
3. Courts: Pleas.A drug court program participant pleads guilty and agrees to the terms and conditions of the program in exchange for the possibility of avoiding sentencing and, oftentimes, being allowed to withdraw the plea upon successful completion of the program.
4. Courts: Convictions: Sentences.If a drug court participant is terminated from the program or withdraws before successful completion, then the conviction stands and the case is transferred back to the original court for sentencing.
5. Pleas.Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must determine, among other things, whether a factual basis for the plea exists.
6. Appeal and Error.An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.
In our previous opinion, State v. Workman, 21 Neb.App. 524, 842 N.W.2d 108 (2013), filed on December 10, 2013, we reversed the order of the district court for Sarpy County which terminated Mathew W. Workman's participation in the drug court program, due to the court's failure to provide a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for terminating his participation in that program. Workman subsequently filed a motion for rehearing. We now withdraw our prior opinion in its entirety and issue this opinion in its place, wherein we reverse the orders of the district court which accepted Workman's guilty pleas to the underlying charges of possession of a controlled substance and which terminated Workman's participation in the drug court program. Because there was not a factual basis given for Workman's pleas of guilty to the underlying charges of possession of a controlled substance, we reverse and vacate Workman's convictions and sentences, and we remand the cause to the district court for further proceedings.
Workman was originally charged in the district court with three counts of delivery of a controlled substance, each a Class III felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the charges
were amended to three counts of possession of a controlled substance, each a Class IV felony. Arraignment on the amended information was continued to determine whether Workman could be accepted into drug court. On November 16, 2009, Workman pled guilty to the amended charges. At the plea hearing, Workman was asked if he understood that if he cannot complete drug court, he could be found guilty of three Class IV felonies, each punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or confinement for a period of up to 5 years, along with other consequences, to which he responded in the affirmative. After advising Workman of his various constitutional rights, the court found that Workman's pleas were freely, voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made, and the court accepted the pleas. The court then stated that it would “defer factual basis for the completion of the plea, pending [Workman's] Drug Court.” Workman's attorney did not object to the deferral of the factual basis or to the acceptance of Workman's pleas without a factual basis. The docket entry from November 16 filed in the district court shows that Workman entered pleas of guilty, the pleas were accepted, the factual basis was deferred, and he was referred to the drug court.
On February 21, 2012, the State filed a motion to terminate Workman's participation in the drug court program for violation of certain conditions of his drug court contract, the details of which we need not recite here. A hearing on the motion to terminate was held on March 6, at which Workman was present and represented by counsel. We need not detail the evidence that was adduced at the hearing for purposes of this opinion. However, we note that at no time during the hearing did Workman's attorney raise the issue that a factual basis had not been given prior to acceptance of the underlying pleas or that Workman had not been adjudged guilty of the underlying charges. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court concluded that Workman's termination from participation in the drug court program was appropriate. A docket entry was made on March 6 by the district judge, finding that Workman was in violation of certain conditions in his drug court contract and that he should be terminated from participating in the drug court program. The entry then set the matter for a
later sentencing hearing. Workman filed an appeal from the March 6 docket entry which we dismissed on April 13 for lack of jurisdiction. After entry of our mandate, Workman was sentenced on August 27 to concurrent terms of 20 months' to 5 years' imprisonment on his original drug charges. At the sentencing hearing, Workman's attorney did not raise the issue of the district court's lack of authority to sentence Workman; instead, Workman's attorney agreed that there was no legal reason why sentence could not be pronounced.
In his original brief on appeal, Workman assigned as error that (1) the district court did not comply with the procedural and substantive due process safeguards required by State v. Shambley, 281 Neb. 317, 795 N.W.2d 884 (2011), thereby rendering erroneous the termination of Workman's participation in the drug court program, and (2) even if the State v. Shambley due process protections were honored, any violations by Workman of his drug court contract did not authorize imposition of a sentence, because he had agreed to the terms of a quasi-contract and not a sentence of probation.
In our previous opinion, we rejected Workman's argument that his due process rights were violated by not being provided with written notice of the hearing on the State's motion to terminate his participation in the drug court program. However, we found that the district court failed to provide Workman with a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking the conditional liberty of participation in the drug court program and, as such, violated this due process right enunciated in State v. Shambley, supra . Accordingly, we reversed the district court's order of termination of Workman's participation in the drug court program and remanded the cause with instructions to the district court to enter an order which contains a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking the conditional liberty of his participation in the drug court program, based upon the record made at the previous hearing. Because we reversed the order of termination and remanded the cause for entry of a new order which comported with due process, we also vacated the sentences imposed. As a result, we were not obligated to address Workman's second assigned error, although we noted that a
district court has authority to impose a criminal sentence if a drug court participant is terminated from the drug court pro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morton
...court was required to determine whether a sufficient factual basis existed prior to accepting Morton's pleas. See State v. Workman , 22 Neb. App. 223, 857 N.W.2d 349 (2014) (finding that trial court erred in accepting defendant's guilty pleas without factual basis and where issue was raised......
- State v. Draper
-
State v. Ettleman
...existed before it accepted Ettleman's no contest plea to felony child abuse and found her guilty of the same. See State v. Workman, 22 Neb. App. 223, 857 N.W.2d 349 (2014) (this court reversed and vacated defendant's convictions and sentences after finding that trial court erred in acceptin......
-
State v. McCain
...is a postplea or postadjudicatory drug and alcohol intensive supervision treatment program for eligible offenders. State v. Workman, 22 Neb. App. 223, 857 N.W.2d 349 (2014). See State v. Shambley, 281 Neb. 317, 795 N.W.2d 884 (2011). A drug court program participant pleads guilty and agrees......