State v. Arp

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Arp

197 N.W.2d 703, 188 Neb. 493, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 851

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMay 19, 1972

DocketNo. 38362

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 N.W.2d 703 (State v. Arp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Arp, 197 N.W.2d 703, 188 Neb. 493, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 851 (Neb. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

White, C. J.

The sole question involved in this case is the contention that the sentence was excessive. The defendant was sentenced on two counts of burglary under section 28-532, R. R. S. 1943, which provides for a penalty of not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years. On one count he received an indeterminate sentence of 3 to 5 years, and on the other count a concurrent sentence of 1 to 3 years. We observe the defendant in this case does not contend that he is entitled to probation; nor at any time does he discuss any particular facts or circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense or his personal record. His sole contention seems to be that the court did not properly consider certain philosophical considerations which are currently popular in the field of criminal jurisprudence.

There is nothing in the record to show that the sentence and the imprisonment of the defendant was not a legitimate exercise of the district court’s judicial discretion to consider “the nature and circumstances of [494]*494the crime and the history, character and condition of the offender.” § 29-2260(2), Laws 1971, L.B. 680, § 15.

The sentence is well within the limits provided by the statute and is concurrent, and there is nothing of any nature whatsoever to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the district court. A sentence within the limits prescribed by statute will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Middleton, 187 Neb. 821, 194 N. W. 2d 568.

The judgment of the district court is correct and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

White, C. J.

The sole question involved in this case is the contention that the sentence was excessive. The defendant was sentenced on two counts of burglary under section 28-532, R. R. S. 1943, which provides for a penalty of not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years. On one count he received an indeterminate sentence of 3 to 5 years, and on the other count a concurrent sentence of 1 to 3 years. We observe the defendant in this case does not contend that he is entitled to probation; nor at any time does he discuss any particular facts or circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense or his personal record. His sole contention seems to be that the court did not properly consider certain philosophical considerations which are currently popular in the field of criminal jurisprudence.

There is nothing in the record to show that the sentence and the imprisonment of the defendant was not a legitimate exercise of the district court’s judicial discretion to consider “the nature and circumstances of [494]*494the crime and the history, character and condition of the offender.” § 29-2260(2), Laws 1971, L.B. 680, § 15.

The sentence is well within the limits provided by the statute and is concurrent, and there is nothing of any nature whatsoever to show an abuse of discretion on the part of the district court. A sentence within the limits prescribed by statute will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Middleton, 187 Neb. 821, 194 N. W. 2d 568.

The judgment of the district court is correct and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 N.W.2d 703, 188 Neb. 493, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arp-neb-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack