Summary
In Hall, however (as well as in War Bonnett), the Supreme Court did not make mention of whether the record indicated that the defendant had any independent knowledge of the potential range of penalties (or, in War Bonnett, of the potential of restitution). Nonetheless, in both Hall and War Bonnett, the Supreme Court reversed the sentencing judgment and remanded the case.
Summary of this case from State v. JamesOpinion
No. 85-558.
Filed February 21, 1986.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: KEITH HOWARD, Judge. Remanded for further proceedings.
Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Bennett G. Hornstein, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Attorney General, and Terry R. Schaaf, for appellee.
KRIVOSHA, C.J., BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ.
Defendant's sole assignment of error is that the district court accepted his plea of nolo contendere and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment for a felony on a trial record which was totally silent concerning whether defendant had knowledge of the maximum and minimum penalties which could be imposed, and without the court's making a finding that defendant had voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights by so pleading.
The State, in effect, confesses error. Accordingly, as required by State v. Fischer, 218 Neb. 678, 357 N.W.2d 477 (1984), and State v. Curnyn, 202 Neb. 135, 274 N.W.2d 157 (1979), we remand the cause to the district court for further proceedings as mandated by those cases.
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.