State v. Redwine

223 N.W.2d 488, 192 Neb. 638, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 767
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 27, 1974
DocketNo. 39515
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 223 N.W.2d 488 (State v. Redwine) 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. Redwine, 223 N.W.2d 488, 192 Neb. 638, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 767 (Neb. 1974).

Opinion

Boslaugh, J.

The defendant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment in the city jail upon a plea of guilty to unlawful possession of amphetamines. After he had been sentenced, the defendant made application for work release privileges. His application was overruled and he has appealed.

Work release privileges may be granted to persons sentenced to a city or county jail upon conviction for a misdemeanor or nonpayment of any fine or forfeiture. § 47-401, R. R. S. 1943.

The penalty prescribed for unlawful possession of amphetamines is imprisonment for 1 to 2 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, or a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 6 months, or both a fine and imprisonment. §§ 28-4,117, 28-4,125(3), R. S. Supp., 1972.

When an offense is not designated by the statute creating it as either a felony or a misdemeanor, the grade of the offense is determined by the maximum punishment authorized by the statute. § 29-102, R. R. S. 1943; Case v. State, 177 Neb. 774, 131 N. W. 2d 191; [640]*640Carr v. State, 152 Neb. 248, 40 N. W. 2d 677; Goedert v. Jones, 150 Neb. 783, 36 N. W. 2d 119; Rains v. State, 142 Neb. 284, 5 N. W. 2d 887; Bright v. State, 125 Neb. 817, 252 N. W. 386. Thus, possession of amphetamines is a felony because it may be punished by imprisonment in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex.

Gandy v. State, 10 Neb. 243, 4 N. W. 1019, cited by the defendant, involved an interpretation of federal law. The Nebraska statutes are controlling here. The defendant was not eligible to receive work release privileges because he had been convicted of a felony.

The application was properly overruled. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

White, C. J., not participating.

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

Related

Gaitor v. State
801 P.2d 1372 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 N.W.2d 488, 192 Neb. 638, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-redwine-neb-1974.