State v. Rhodes

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Rhodes

190 N.W.2d 623, 187 Neb. 332, 1971 Neb. LEXIS 611

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 8, 1971

Docket38060

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 190 N.W.2d 623 (State v. Rhodes) 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. Rhodes, 190 N.W.2d 623, 187 Neb. 332, 1971 Neb. LEXIS 611 (Neb. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

S'pencer, J.

This appeal from a denial of post conviction relief presents a very narrow issue. Appellant claims the failure of the trial court to advise him of his ineligibility for parole negates his guilty plea. There is no merit to appellant’s contention.

On October 26, 1966, appellant, in the presence of his court-appointed counsel, entered a plea of guilty to- a check charge and was sentenced for a term of 3 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, said sentence to be served consecutive to and to commence at the expiration of any sentences then being served. Appellant was then returned to California to complete his sentence in that state. In 1970 when he was paroled from the California state prison he was returned to Nebraska to serve his sentence.

Appellant insists his- plea was involuntary because he was not told that he would be ineligible for parole under a sentence for a specific term. Appellant is confusing state and federal procedures. This question has been raised under rule 11, Federal Rules, Criminal Procedure, which is not binding on state courts, and there is a decided split of authority among the various Circuit Courts of Appeals on the point. If it were material, we would believe the correct holding would be that non-eligibility for parole is not a consequence of a plea of guilty. Rather, it is the consequence of the withholding of legislative grace. See, Smith v. United States, 324 F. 2d 436; Trujillo v. United States, 377 F. 2d 266; and Sanchez v. United States, 417 F. 2d 494.

Under section 83-1, 110, R. S. Supp., 1969, appellant is eligible for parole upon the completion of his sentence less the reductions granted to him. Laws 1969, c. 817, S 41, p. 3093. See, also; State v. McMillian, 186 Neb. 784, 186 N. W. 2d 481.

*334 In a post conviction proceeding, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish a basis for relief. State v. Coffen, 184 Neb. 254, 166 N. W. 2d 593. This the appellant has failed to do.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

S'pencer, J.

This appeal from a denial of post conviction relief presents a very narrow issue. Appellant claims the failure of the trial court to advise him of his ineligibility for parole negates his guilty plea. There is no merit to appellant’s contention.

On October 26, 1966, appellant, in the presence of his court-appointed counsel, entered a plea of guilty to- a check charge and was sentenced for a term of 3 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, said sentence to be served consecutive to and to commence at the expiration of any sentences then being served. Appellant was then returned to California to complete his sentence in that state. In 1970 when he was paroled from the California state prison he was returned to Nebraska to serve his sentence.

Appellant insists his- plea was involuntary because he was not told that he would be ineligible for parole under a sentence for a specific term. Appellant is confusing state and federal procedures. This question has been raised under rule 11, Federal Rules, Criminal Procedure, which is not binding on state courts, and there is a decided split of authority among the various Circuit Courts of Appeals on the point. If it were material, we would believe the correct holding would be that non-eligibility for parole is not a consequence of a plea of guilty. Rather, it is the consequence of the withholding of legislative grace. See, Smith v. United States, 324 F. 2d 436; Trujillo v. United States, 377 F. 2d 266; and Sanchez v. United States, 417 F. 2d 494.

Under section 83-1, 110, R. S. Supp., 1969, appellant is eligible for parole upon the completion of his sentence less the reductions granted to him. Laws 1969, c. 817, S 41, p. 3093. See, also; State v. McMillian, 186 Neb. 784, 186 N. W. 2d 481.

*334 In a post conviction proceeding, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish a basis for relief. State v. Coffen, 184 Neb. 254, 166 N. W. 2d 593. This the appellant has failed to do.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 N.W.2d 623, 187 Neb. 332, 1971 Neb. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rhodes-neb-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack