 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cramblet5/14/2002
t at 8. See Hoyle v. Peterson, 216 Neb. 253, 343 N.W.2d 730 (1984) (holding that justifiable refusal of test depends upon some illegal or unreasonable aspect in nature of request, test itself, or both).
Viewing the evidence of refusal in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is obviously sufficient to support Cramblet's conviction for refusal to submit to a chemical test.
Excessive Sentences.
Cramblet's final assignment of error is that the district court abused its discretion by affirming the sentences of the trial court. The county court sentenced Cramblet on count II (second-offense refusal to submit to chemical test) to 90 days in jail, a $500 fine, a 1-year suspension of his driver's license, and a 6-month immobilization of his vehicle. On count III (violation of driver's duty following accident), the county court sentenced Cramblet to pay a $300 fine. These sentences were within the statutory limits established by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-106 (Cum. Supp. 2000) and 60-6,197.
Sentences within statutory limits will be disturbed by an appellate court only if the sentence complained of was an abuse of judicial discretion. State v. Burkhardt, 258 Neb. 1050, 607 N.W.2d 512 (2000). A judicial abuse of discretion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. State v. Hamik, 262 Neb. 761, 635 N.W.2d 123 (2001).
The county court considered Cramblet's history, and although it did not find Cramblet's driving history to be "incredibly ugly," it did note that his history is "not good." The court found that probation was not appropriate, and we agree. As the county court noted, Cramblet was already on probation when he committed these offenses. This shows that "the risk is substantial that during the period of probation the offender will engage in additional criminal conduct" and that probation is inappropriate. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260(2)(a) (Reissue 1995). There was no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Affirmed.
|