State v. Sheets

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Sheets

214 N.W.2d 379, 191 Neb. 153, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 824

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1974

Docket39110

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 214 N.W.2d 379 (State v. Sheets) 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. Sheets, 214 N.W.2d 379, 191 Neb. 153, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 824 (Neb. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

McCown, J.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of shooting with intent to kill, wound, or maim. The court found him guilty of being an habitual criminal. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 16% to 25 years. The issue on appeal is whether or not the sentence was excessive.

The presentence investigation report discloses a record of offenses committed by the defendant beginning in 1942 when he was 11 years old. He was committed to the Boys Training School in Kearney on more than one occasion. His military service in the early 1950’s was marked by a sentence of 5 years in the United States Disciplinary Barracks followed by parole and dishonorable discharge. He was convicted and served sentences for felonies in 1957, 1958, and 1960. The crime for which he was convicted in this case was a violent one. His marital history is equally violent.

The statutory range of sentence here was from 10 to 60 years. The sentence was well within those limits. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Unless an abuse of discretion appears, a sentence within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Weidenfeller, 189 Neb. 505, 203 N. W. 2d 784.

*155 The judgment of the District Court was correct and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

McCown, J.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of shooting with intent to kill, wound, or maim. The court found him guilty of being an habitual criminal. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 16% to 25 years. The issue on appeal is whether or not the sentence was excessive.

The presentence investigation report discloses a record of offenses committed by the defendant beginning in 1942 when he was 11 years old. He was committed to the Boys Training School in Kearney on more than one occasion. His military service in the early 1950’s was marked by a sentence of 5 years in the United States Disciplinary Barracks followed by parole and dishonorable discharge. He was convicted and served sentences for felonies in 1957, 1958, and 1960. The crime for which he was convicted in this case was a violent one. His marital history is equally violent.

The statutory range of sentence here was from 10 to 60 years. The sentence was well within those limits. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Unless an abuse of discretion appears, a sentence within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Weidenfeller, 189 Neb. 505, 203 N. W. 2d 784.

*155 The judgment of the District Court was correct and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 N.W.2d 379, 191 Neb. 153, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sheets-neb-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack