 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Haley3/18/2003
not disturb sentences that are within statutory limits, unless the district court abused its discretion in establishing the sentences. State v. Decker, 261 Neb. 382, 622 N.W.2d 903 (2001). See, State v. Gutierrez, 260 Neb. 1008, 620 N.W.2d 738 (2001); State v. Holecek, 260 Neb. 976, 621 N.W.2d 100 (2000).
In imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should consider the defendant's age, mentality, education, experience, and social and cultural background, as well as his or her past criminal record or law-abiding conduct, motivation for the offense, nature of the offense, and the amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime. State v. Decker, supra. Where a sentence imposed within statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying these factors as well as any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed. Id. An abuse of discretion takes place when the sentencing court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result. Id.
Haley violated § 60-6,196, punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, or both. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Cum. Supp. 1998). He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months to 3 years. The record reflects Haley's lengthy criminal history, including 18 prior convictions for driving under a suspended license as well as 5 convictions for driving while intoxicated. At the time of his arrest in the current case, Haley was not eligible to drive until 2012.
After considering all of the factors set forth above, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that Haley's sentence, which was within the statutory limits, is not excessive.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the district court did not err in failing to suppress Haley's statements to Meyer. The evidence was sufficient to sustain Haley's conviction, and his sentence was not excessive. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
|