 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Taylor7/29/2003
iately after the accident, Hattermann and Cleveland made contact with the driver of the stolen vehicle, who was later identified as Leon Taylor. Rescue units were called for Taylor and the occupants of the other vehicle involved in the collision, all of which were transported to the local hospital.
At trial, Taylor testified on his own behalf. When questioned about the events that occurred on the evening of October 30, 2001, Taylor indicated that he was on his way back to Montana to return the vehicle he was driving. Taylor stated that he had previously rented the vehicle and that the rental agreement had been extended. However, Taylor later stated on cross-examination that the vehicle was not actually rented under his name and refused to disclose who had rented it. Taylor admitted that he saw the officers behind him with their police cruisers' overhead emergency lights and sirens on. Taylor further admitted that when the police officers attempted to stop him, Taylor had no intention of stopping based upon his recent observations, following the terrorist attacks in September 2001, of law enforcement agents "manhandl " people who were being pulled over on the highway.
Taylor was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest and was later determined by the sentencing judge to be a habitual criminal . Taylor was sentenced, with a habitual criminal enhancement, to serve 10 to 15 years in prison. Taylor timely appealed.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
On appeal, Taylor alleges that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and (2) the district court erred in finding that Taylor was a habitual criminal .
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420, 648 N.W.2d 282 (2002).
Interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. State v. Mather, 264 Neb. 182, 646 N.W.2d 605 (2002).
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of Evidence.
Taylor alleges that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest. Specifically, Taylor argues that the State failed to offer any evidence to show that Taylor violated a state law that constituted a felony, an essential element of the crime.
We first note that count II, on the face of the information, reflects that Taylor was charged with violation of § 28-905(1), operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest, which states:
Any person who operates any motor vehicle to flee in such vehicle in an effort to avoid arrest or citation for the violation of any law of the State of Nebraska constituting a misdemeanor, infraction, traffic infraction, or any city or village ordinance, except nonmoving traffic violations, commits the offense of misdemeanor operation of a motor vehicle to avoid arrest.
(Emphasis supplied.)
However, the face of the information also identifies count II as a Class IV felony, which is the penalty for violation of § 28-905(2). Further, in the body of the information, count II states that Taylor "did operate a motor vehicle to flee in such vehicle in an effort to avoid arrest for the violation of any law of the State of Nebraska constituting a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|