State v. Michigaud

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Michigaud

210 N.W.2d 926, 190 Neb. 599, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 755

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 5, 1973

DocketNo. 38974

StatusPublished

This text of 210 N.W.2d 926 (State v. Michigaud) 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. Michigaud, 210 N.W.2d 926, 190 Neb. 599, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 755 (Neb. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Newton, J.

Defendant received an indeterminate sentence of not [600]*600less than 3 nor more than 5 years for forgery. His sole assignment of error is that the sentence is excessive.

Defendant was 37 years of age when sentenced. He has been previously convicted of six felonies including burglary, joy riding, escape from custody, and forgery, and was on parole from the last conviction in Michigan when this offense was committed. “Where the punishment of an offense created by statute is left to the discretion of the trial court within prescribed limits, the sentence imposed within those limits will not be disturbed on appeal unless there appears to be an abuse of discretion.” State v. Kelly, ante p. 41, 205 N. W. 2d 646. There was no abuse of discretion.

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

Newton, J.

Defendant received an indeterminate sentence of not [600]*600less than 3 nor more than 5 years for forgery. His sole assignment of error is that the sentence is excessive.

Defendant was 37 years of age when sentenced. He has been previously convicted of six felonies including burglary, joy riding, escape from custody, and forgery, and was on parole from the last conviction in Michigan when this offense was committed. “Where the punishment of an offense created by statute is left to the discretion of the trial court within prescribed limits, the sentence imposed within those limits will not be disturbed on appeal unless there appears to be an abuse of discretion.” State v. Kelly, ante p. 41, 205 N. W. 2d 646. There was no abuse of discretion.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 N.W.2d 926, 190 Neb. 599, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-michigaud-neb-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack