 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Fahrnbruch4/6/2004
es 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.
The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge's observation of the defendant's demeanor and attitude and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's life. State v. Riley, 242 Neb. 887, 497 N.W.2d 23 (1993). Based on the present state of Nebraska law, a finding that a sentencing court abused its discretion will be infrequent. See, State v. Decker, 261 Neb. 382, 622 N.W.2d 903 (2001); State v. Harrison, 255 Neb. 990, 588 N.W.2d 556 (1999).
Given the fact that at the age of 29, Fahrnbruch had a total of six arrests for DUI and had several other convictions for assault, disturbing the peace, trespassing, making terroristic threats, and third degree assault on an officer, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Fahrnbruch to 20 months to 4 years in prison for fourth-offense DUI. Therefore, this assignment of error has no merit.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in overruling Fahrnbruch's motion to suppress, in finding Fahrnbruch guilty of fourth-offense DUI, or in sentencing Fahrnbruch to 20 months to 4 years in prison. For these reasons, we affirm Fahrnbruch's conviction and sentence.
Affirmed.
|