 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Marshall5/21/2002
(not designated for permanent publication)
INTRODUCTION
Scott L. Marshall appeals from an order of the district court for Holt County affirming an order of the county court convicting Marshall of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), second offense, and sentencing Marshall to 2 years' probation and 5 days in jail. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 9, 1999, the State filed a complaint charging Marshall with DUI and speeding on July 10. Marshall initially entered a not guilty plea to each charge, but subsequently pled guilty to speeding for driving 34 miles per hour in a 15-mile-per-hour zone.
On February 25, 2000, a jury trial was held in county court, after which the jury found Marshall guilty of DUI. An enhancement hearing was held on April 11. At the hearing, the State entered into evidence over Marshall's objection exhibit 27, a certified copy of Marshall's 1994 DUI conviction. Marshall contended that exhibit 27 was inadmissible because only the first page of the nine-page document was certified. The county court overruled Marshall's objection, and based on exhibit 27, the court found that Marshall had a prior DUI conviction and enhanced Marshall's conviction to DUI, second offense. The trial court sentenced Marshall to 2 years' probation under certain conditions and 5 days in jail.
On April 11, 2000, Marshall filed a notice of appeal to the district court, and on May 25, Marshall filed his statement of errors. On August 3, the district court held a hearing. At that hearing, Marshall's counsel realized that exhibit 27 had not been included in the bill of exceptions prepared for the district court's review. Marshall's counsel asked the court for leave to request that the bill of exceptions be amended to include exhibit 27. The district court denied Marshall's counsel's motion. After reviewing the evidence, the district court affirmed Marshall's conviction and sentence.
Marshall appealed to this court, and we found that the district court abused its discretion in denying Marshall's motion to supplement the bill of exceptions. State v. Marshall, No. A-00-907, 2001 WL 410728 (Neb. App. April 24, 2001) (not designated for permanent publication). We then remanded the cause to the district court with directions to grant Marshall's motion to supplement the bill of exceptions by including exhibit 27 and to hold further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
On July 30, 2001, the district court held a hearing at which it received exhibit 27. After the hearing, the district court found that the county court had not erred in receiving exhibit 27. Additionally, the district court found that the county court did not err in enhancing Marshall's DUI conviction to a second offense. Marshall appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
On appeal, Marshall alleges that the trial court erred in receiving exhibit 27 as evidence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This action was originally brought in county court and subsequently appealed to the district court. The district court and the Nebraska Supreme Court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on the record. Suburban Air Freight v. Aust, 262 Neb. 908, 636 N.W.2d 629 (2001).
On appeal from the district court, appellate review is limited to those errors specifically assigned in the appeal to the district court and again assigned as error in an appeal to a higher appellate court. Id.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Marshall contends that the district court erred in affirming the decision of the trial court to receive exhibit 27, because only the f
Page 1 2 3 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|