State v. Wright, 85-028
| Decision Date | 20 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-028,85-028 |
| Citation | 374 N.W.2d 26,220 Neb. 847 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Richard E. WRIGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error. Under the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1912.01(1) (Cum.Supp.1984), a motion for a new trial is not required to obtain appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears in the record.
2. Pleas: Waiver. Where a record is entirely barren of any facts so demonstrating, it is impossible to conclude from a plea of guilty that a defendant has voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his right to not testify at trial.
Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Bennett G. Hornstein, Omaha, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Terry R. Schaaf, Lincoln, for appellee.
Defendant, Richard E. Wright, pled guilty to a charge of theft by receiving stolen goods valued at over $300 but less than $1,000 in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-517 (Reissue 1979). Upon a plea of guilty he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than 12 nor more than 16 months and was ordered to pay costs. He appeals the conviction and sentence on the sole ground that the trial court failed to advise him that he had the right to remain silent and to not testify at trial. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
We first address the State's argument that we do not reach the merits of the issue presented by Wright because he failed to raise the issue in a motion for new trial, citing State v. Price, 198 Neb. 229, 252 N.W.2d 165 (1977). Price observed that while a motion for new trial was not required in order for this court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the court would nonetheless ordinarily not consider any error not presented to the trial court by such a motion if the error were of such a nature that it could have been corrected.
The argument overlooks the 1982 enactment of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1912.01(1) (Cum.Supp.1984), which provides: "A motion for a new trial shall not be a prerequisite to obtaining appellate review of any issue upon which the ruling of the trial court appears in the record."
The record shows that the trial court, following a colloquy with defendant, stated: "I accept the plea of guilty to the charge and find and adjudge Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Muratella
... ... [ 21 ] See 1982 Neb. Laws, L.B. 720, § ... 1 (codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912.01 (Reissue ... 2016)). See, also, State v. Wright , 220 Neb. 847, ... 374 N.W.2d 26 (1985). Accord, State v. Turner , 221 ... Neb. 132, 375 N.W.2d 154 (1985); State v. Potter , ... 220 Neb. 866, ... ...
-
Cave v. Reiser
...and therefore Jerald was not required to move for a new trial as a prerequisite to obtaining appellate relief. See State v. Wright, 220 Neb. 847, 374 N.W.2d 26 (1985). Extrinsic Evidence to Impeach Judgment in Revival [3,4] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1515 (Cum. Supp. 2002), a judgment becom......
- State v. Ross, 84-856
-
State v. Potter, 85-177
...him that he had the right to remain silent and to not testify at trial. This case presents the same issues as those in State v. Wright, 220 Neb. 847, 374 N.W.2d 26 (1985), decided this date, and in this case we rule in the same way and for the same Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, def......