State v. Jones

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Jones

362 N.W.2d 58, 219 Neb. 184, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 901

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1985

Docket84-506

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 362 N.W.2d 58 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 362 N.W.2d 58, 219 Neb. 184, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 901 (Neb. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the municipal court sentencing the defendant, Robert V. Jones, for driving while intoxicated, third offense. The defendant’s contentions all relate to the issue of whether a prior conviction of the defendant could be used for enhancement purposes.

The defendant contends that the record of his conviction in the county court on November 20, 1980, could not be used for *185 enhancement purposes because the record fails to show that the defendant was advised of his rights as required by our decision in State v. Tweedy, 209 Neb. 649, 309 N.W.2d 94 (1981). The record shows, and it is not disputed, that the defendant was represented by counsel, who was present at the arraignment when the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered and accepted and the finding of guilt made.

This case is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Baxter, 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984). There, as here, the State offered records of prior convictions in which the defendant was represented by counsel. The defendant argued that the convictions were constitutionally infirm for failure to show a waiver of all rights prior to accepting the defendant’s guilty pleas. We rejected that argument and held that a record of a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes need not show a complete waiver of constitutional rights as required by State v. Tweedy, supra. We said:

The Smith case [213 Neb. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983)] held that a transcript of conviction which fails to show on its face that counsel was afforded or the right waived cannot be used for enhancement purposes. Other objections to the validity of the judgment must be raised by direct appeal or in a separate proceeding commenced for the express purpose of setting aside the judgment alleged to be invalid.

State v. Baxter, supra at 416, 355 N.W.2d at 515-16.

The record of the conviction in the county court on November 20, 1980, was sufficient for enhancement purposes. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the municipal court sentencing the defendant, Robert V. Jones, for driving while intoxicated, third offense. The defendant’s contentions all relate to the issue of whether a prior conviction of the defendant could be used for enhancement purposes.

The defendant contends that the record of his conviction in the county court on November 20, 1980, could not be used for *185 enhancement purposes because the record fails to show that the defendant was advised of his rights as required by our decision in State v. Tweedy, 209 Neb. 649, 309 N.W.2d 94 (1981). The record shows, and it is not disputed, that the defendant was represented by counsel, who was present at the arraignment when the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered and accepted and the finding of guilt made.

This case is controlled by our recent decision in State v. Baxter, 218 Neb. 414, 355 N.W.2d 514 (1984). There, as here, the State offered records of prior convictions in which the defendant was represented by counsel. The defendant argued that the convictions were constitutionally infirm for failure to show a waiver of all rights prior to accepting the defendant’s guilty pleas. We rejected that argument and held that a record of a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes need not show a complete waiver of constitutional rights as required by State v. Tweedy, supra. We said:

The Smith case [213 Neb. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983)] held that a transcript of conviction which fails to show on its face that counsel was afforded or the right waived cannot be used for enhancement purposes. Other objections to the validity of the judgment must be raised by direct appeal or in a separate proceeding commenced for the express purpose of setting aside the judgment alleged to be invalid.

State v. Baxter, supra at 416, 355 N.W.2d at 515-16.

The record of the conviction in the county court on November 20, 1980, was sufficient for enhancement purposes. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 N.W.2d 58, 219 Neb. 184, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-neb-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack