 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. King3/9/2004
BR>
In regard to King's sentence for driving during revocation, 6 months in jail and license revocation for 1 year, and King's sentence for careless driving, a $100 fine, we also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Under § 60-4,108, driving under a revoked license is a Class II misdemeanor and, as part of a conviction for a first offense, the court shall order the defendant not to operate any motor vehicle for 1 year and shall revoke that person's operator's license for the same period of time. A Class II misdemeanor provides no statutory minimum penalty and imposes a statutory maximum penalty of 6 months' imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, or both. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-106 (Cum. Supp. 2002).
Regarding King's last offense, careless driving, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-689 (Reissue 1998) states that the maximum fine for a first-offense traffic infraction is $100.
Sentences within statutory limits will be disturbed by an appellate court only if the sentences complained of were an abuse of judicial discretion. State v. Segura, 265 Neb. 903, 660 N.W.2d 512 (2003). 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.
Although King appears to contend that the county court erred in not ordering a presentence investigation report, we note that the use of a presentence investigation before sentencing an offender is required only as to those convicted of felonies. State v. Turco, 6 Neb. App. 725, 576 N.W.2d 847 (1998), citing State v. Cardin, 194 Neb. 231, 231 N.W.2d 328 (1975). See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2261(1) (Cum. Supp. 2002). Thus, because the county court convicted King of two misdemeanors and one traffic infraction, no presentence investigation was required.
We conclude that King's sentences do not demonstrate that the county court abused its discretion. Therefore, King's assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in affirming the sentences imposed upon King by the county court. Thus, the district court's order is affirmed in its entirety.
Affirmed.
|