 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Haley3/18/2003
(Not Designated for Permanent Publication)
INTRODUCTION
Milton Haley, Jr., was charged with "operating a motor vehicle . . . while his . . . operator's license revoked." See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,196(6) (Cum. Supp. 2000). Haley filed a motion to suppress any and all statements he made when contacted by law enforcement officers. Haley alleged that after the officers took him into custody, the officers questioned him without an adequate advisement of his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, and his right to court-appointed counsel, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and the Nebraska Constitution. After a hearing, the motion was denied. A jury trial was held, at which time Haley preserved the objections raised in his motion to suppress. Haley was found guilty of the above charge and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months to 3 years, with credit for 1 day served. On appeal, Haley claims error in both his conviction and his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
BACKGROUND
The facts relevant to our decision are as follows: At approximately 7 p.m. on May 2, 2001, Lincoln police officers Brian Ward, Eric Meyer, and Court Cleland were eating dinner at a restaurant on the east side of South 14th Street, which is a one-way northbound street in this area. While the officers were eating, they noticed a maroon Cadillac traveling southbound on 14th Street. As the officers watched, the vehicle stopped near a parking garage in the middle of the block. Meyer observed Haley driving the Cadillac. Additionally, all three of the officers testified that after the Cadillac stopped, they observed a male exit the vehicle from the driver's seat. All three officers identified Haley as this person.
At the suppression hearing, Meyer testified that he approached Haley on foot and asked to see his driver's license. When Haley admitted that he did not have a driver's license, Meyer asked if his license had been suspended. In response, Haley stated that his license was suspended but that he had not been driving the vehicle. Meyer replied that he had seen Haley driving, at which time Haley admitted to driving the vehicle. At this point, Meyer ran a check on Haley's license and confirmed that it was in fact suspended. Meyer then placed Haley under arrest.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Haley contends that the district court erred in (1) overruling his motion to suppress because he was subjected to custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights, (2) finding him guilty because the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for driving on a suspended license, and (3) imposing an excessive sentence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the evidence, but, rather, recognizes the trial court as the finder of fact and takes into consideration that it observed the witnesses. State v. Faber, 264 Neb. 198, 647 N.W.2d 67 (2002). In reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence obtained through a warrantless search or seizure, an appellate court conducts a de novo review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations, and reviews factual findings for clear error, giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by the trial judge. State v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 403, 623 N.W.2d 298 (2001).
ANALYSIS
The trial court found that Haley's statements to Meyer were made during the initial investigation pursuant to a routine tra
Page 1 2 3 4 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|