- 248 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Angelo M. Bol, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 22, 2016. No. S-15-706.

1. Pleas. To support a finding that a defendant has entered a guilty 

plea freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, a court must 

inform a defendant concerning (1) the nature of the charge, (2) the 

right to assistance of counsel, (3) the right to confront witnesses against 

the defendant, (4) the right to a jury trial, and (5) the privilege against 

self-incrimination. The record must also establish a factual basis for 

the plea and that the defendant knew the range of penalties for the 

crime charged.

2. Trial: Interpreters. The appointment of an interpreter for an accused at 

trial largely rests in the trial court’s discretion.

3. ____: ____. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by failing to 

appoint an interpreter if the record shows that the defendant had a sufficient command of the English language to understand questions posed 

and answers given.

4. Trial: Witnesses: Interpreters. Generally, a defendant is entitled to 

an interpreter only if he or she timely requests one, or it is otherwise 

brought to the trial court’s attention that the defendant or a witness has 

a language difficulty that may prevent meaningful understanding of, or 

communication in, the proceeding.

5. Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof: Appeal and Error. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his or her 

counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficiency prejudiced the defendant.

6. Effectiveness of Counsel: Evidence: Appeal and Error. An appellate 

court addresses an ineffective assistance claim raised on direct appeal 

only if the record allows the court to adequately review the question 

without an evidentiary hearing.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/22/2016 09:07 AM CDT
- 249 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

Appeal from the District Court for Buffalo County: William

T. Wright, Judge. Affirmed.

Charles D. Brewster, of Anderson, Klein, Brewster & Brandt, 

for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and George R. Love 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, 

Stacy, and Kelch, JJ.

Connolly, J.

SUMMARY

Angelo M. Bol pleaded no contest to first degree murder. 

The court accepted Bol’s plea and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, Bol argues that his plea was involuntary 

and that the court should have appointed him an interpreter 

because he had trouble understanding the English language. 

We conclude that Bol could comprehend the proceedings and 

communicate in English. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

According to the prosecutor’s factual basis to support Bol’s 

plea of no contest, in December 2014, Bol got in a fight with 

the victim. The fight occurred at the meatpacking plant where 

they worked. Later, Bol’s employer fired him. Bol went home 

and returned to the plant with a handgun. Bol waited a few 

hours for a shift change. While the victim was leaving the 

plant, Bol approached him, supposedly to ask a question. He 

then shot the victim several times in the torso and head. The 

victim died at the scene.

Although Bol focuses his assignments of error on the plea 

hearing, the record includes Bol’s motion to suppress statements that he made at the scene and to an investigator for 

the county sheriff during questioning at the jail. Bol claimed 

that his statements were not freely and voluntarily made 
- 250 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

because the court did not properly inform him of his constitutional rights.

Officers responding at the scene wondered if Bol could 

speak English because he never said a word. They learned that 

Bol was Sudanese and tried to find an interpreter to come to 

the jail. But when the investigator asked Bol during the booking procedure if he understood English, he said yes. His native 

language is Dinka Bor. The interpreter who came to the jail 

appeared to know Bol or to know of him, and the sheriff’s 

office decided not to use him. Because Bol had answered questions during the booking procedure in English, the sheriff’s 

office decided that an interpreter was unnecessary. The booking 

procedure took 3 to 4 minutes. Later, the investigator read Bol 

his Miranda rights, had him sign a waiver form, and told him 

that if he did not understand something, he needed to tell the 

investigator. Bol said that he was willing to speak to the investigator. During the 2-hour interview, Bol never said that he did 

not understand a question.

Immigration officials told the investigator that Bol came to 

the United States in 2001 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2004. In addition to working in various meatpacking 

plants, Bol obtained a commercial driver’s license. The court 

overruled the motion to suppress Bol’s statements, finding that 

Bol gave his consent freely and voluntarily.

At the plea hearing, Bol’s attorney stated that Bol had 

reached a plea agreement with the State. In exchange for Bol’s 

plea of guilty or no contest to first degree murder, the State 

agreed to dismiss the charge of using a weapon to commit 

a felony. The court informed Bol that he would give up the 

constitutional rights the court would next describe by pleading guilty or no contest to the charges. The court informed 

Bol that he had the right to (1) have a trial by a jury of 12 

persons or the judge alone; (2) be presumed innocent; (3) 

have guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) have the 

court determine whether bond was appropriate; (5) be represented by counsel at the county’s expense if he could not 
- 251 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

afford an attorney; (6) remain silent and not testify, or testify 

if he wished; (7) have witnesses against him testify and crossexamine them; (8) call witnesses and present evidence; and (9) 

use the court’s subpoena power to compel a witness’ testimony. 

Conversely, the court explained that Bol still had the right to 

counsel through sentencing and a direct appeal but that he 

would likely waive any court error to that point in the proceedings by entering a plea.

After this explanation, the court asked Bol a series of questions calling for yes or no answers. First, it asked Bol whether 

he had a condition or illness, or had used any substance, that 

would affect his ability to understand. Bol said no. After Bol’s 

attorney described the plea agreement, Bol confirmed to the 

court that the stated agreement was correct and that he was satisfied with his attorney’s advice and representation. Bol denied 

being compelled to comply with the agreement. The following 

colloquy then occurred:

[Court]: Do you understand that if you plead guilty or 

no contest to Count I in the amended information, which 

now charges you with first-degree murder, a Class IA 

felony, you will, in essence, be telling this Court that you 

committed the crime described in Count I or at least you 

do not contest the accuracy of the facts stated in Count I; 

do you understand that?

[Bol]: No.

[Court]: Okay. What is it about that you don’t 

understand?

[Bol]: The process, the way it work.

[Court]: All right. Basically what’s going to happen is 

if you plead guilty or no contest, there will not be any 

trial. What will happen is you are telling the Court that I 

did that crime. Or you are saying I’m not going to agree 

that I did that crime, but I am going to say that I’m not 

going to contest it[.] I’m not going to argue against anything that’s said in Count I.

[Bol]: Well, yeah.
- 252 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

[Court]: Do you understand that?

[Bol]: Yeah.

[Court]: Okay. In this particular case the State has filed 

an amended information, that is, it has changed the original information. The way they changed it is they have 

dismissed the second count. That leaves one count only 

against you. That count now charges you with first-degree 

murder, which is a Class IA felony, . . . one of the most 

serious levels of felony under Nebraska law.

. . . .

Do you understand that is the charge or count to which 

you will be pleading guilty or no contest today?

[Bol]: Yes.

. . . .

[Court]: Now, did you hear my description of the rights 

that you have under the constitution of the United States, 

the constitution of the State of Nebraska and the laws 

of both?

[Bol]: Yes.

[Court]: Do you have any questions with regard to 

those rights?

[Bol]: No.

[Court]: Do you understand that you will waive or give 

up all the rights I have told you you will waive or give 

up, if you plead guilty or no contest?

[Bol]: Yes.

[Court]: Do you understand if you plead guilty or 

no contest, I’ll find you guilty of Count I, first-degree 

murder, a Class IA felony, without a trial; do you understand that?

[Bol]: What that mean?

[Court]: All right. Again, I want to make sure you 

understand this very clearly. If you plead guilty or no 

contest to Count I, I’m going to find you guilty of 

Count I, but there is going to be no trial. Your admission 

that you are guilty will be the sole basis upon which I will 
- 253 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

make a determination and I will find you guilty. Do you 

understand that?

[Bol]: Yes.

The court asked the prosecutor to advise Bol of the potential penalties he faced if he pleaded guilty or no contest. 

The prosecutor stated that “first-degree murder is a Class IA 

felony, punishable by a term of life imprisonment. That is the 

sentence.” The court asked Bol if he understood the potential 

penalties; Bol said yes.

Next, the court then explained that Bol’s conviction was 

likely to adversely affect his ability to remain in the country or 

become naturalized, “assuming that you are ever released from 

prison.” When the court asked Bol if he still wished to enter a 

plea of guilty or no contest, his attorney stated that Bol had a 

question about the immigration consequences. When the court 

again explained that if Bol were ever released, his conviction 

would adversely affect his ability to stay in the country, Bol 

asked, “How can I leave if I will be sentenced to life?” The 

court responded as follows:

[Court]: That’s correct; however, life sentences are not 

always necessarily life sentences. There are occasions 

when persons who are sentenced to life in prison get 

released, perhaps long after the prison term commences, 

but you need to know that if that would occur for some 

reason unknown to us at this point, that most likely would 

adversely affect your ability to remain in this country, 

work in this country or ever complete the naturalization 

process. Do you understand that?

[Bol]: Correct.

[Court]: All right. Would you please stand. . . . [W]ith 

regard to Count I of the amended information . . . charging you with first-degree murder, a Class IA felony 

under Nebraska law, how, sir, do you plead? What is 

your plea?

[Bol]: Guilty or no contest.

[Court]: It has to be one or the other. It can’t be both.
- 254 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

After an off-the-record discussion between Bol and his attorney, the court and Bol further conversed:

[Court]: . . . [L]et’s do this for purposes of the record, 

you are apparently having a little bit of difficulty understanding. I want to make sure you understand. There is 

little difference between a plea of guilty or no contest. 

Both will result in a guilty judgment. The only difference is that a plea of guilty can be used against you 

in some later court proceeding as an identification of 

guilt. A no contest plea typically cannot be used in 

most other civil and criminal proceedings, as the plea 

of guilty can be used. That’s the only difference. Both 

will result in the finding you are guilty. Do you understand that?

[Bol]: It’s kind of difficult to understand that.

[Court]: I understand that. Let’s go over it one more 

time. If you plead guilty, it’s going to happen because I’m 

going to find you guilty. I’m going to enter a judgment 

of guilt on first-degree murder, okay. If you plead no 

contest, I’m going to find you guilty, I’m going to enter a 

judgment of guilty of first-degree murder.

The only difference between the two pleadings is the 

potential affect they might have on their use against you 

in some other civil or criminal proceedings. Typically a 

no contest plea cannot be used in other civil or criminal 

proceedings. That is, your plea of guilty can be used in 

certain other civil or criminal proceedings. That’s the 

only difference between the two pleas. Both are going 

to result in a judgment of guilt. Which one do you wish 

to enter?

[Bol]: Plead no contest.

. . . .

[Court]: All right. Thank you. . . . [L]isten carefully to 

me. Has anyone threatened, pressured or forced you to 

enter this plea against your will?

[Bol]: Yeah.
- 255 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

[Court]: Okay. Did you understand what I just said? 

It’s extremely important . . . that you know what is going 

on. What I want to make sure of is that no one has threatened, beat you, tortured you, done anything similar to 

that to get you to enter this plea. Has anyone done anything like that?

[Bol]: No.

[Court]: Has anyone promised you anything that isn’t 

reflected in this hearing today —

[Bol]: No.

[Court]: — to get you to enter this plea?

[Bol]: No.

[Court]: Okay. Thank you. You can be seated.

After this colloquy, the court asked the prosecutor to provide the factual basis for the plea. The court found beyond a 

reasonable doubt that a factual basis for the plea existed and 

that Bol understood his rights, the nature of the charges, and 

the possible penalties and consequences. It found that Bol 

had entered his plea freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. It accepted Bol’s plea and judged him guilty of first 

degree murder.

Later, at the sentencing hearing, Bol extensively spoke 

about the workplace harassment he had suffered to explain 

why he had committed the crime. This explanation comprises 

6 pages of transcript and showed Bol’s competence with 

English. When the court explained how his actions showed 

that he had planned the killing and intended to kill the victim, 

Bol agreed. He did not appear to have any problem following 

the court’s extensive comments. The court sentenced him to 

life in prison.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Bol assigns, restated, that the court erred by (1) accepting 

Bol’s plea without ensuring that he understood the charges 

against him and his constitutional rights; (2) determining 

that Bol entered his plea freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and 
- 256 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

understandingly; (3) not appointing Bol an interpreter; and (4) 

failing to inform Bol of the minimum and maximum penalties for first degree murder. Bol also assigns that (5) his trial 

counsel was ineffective for not assuring that Bol understood 

the proceedings.

ANALYSIS

Bol generally argues that he “did not understand what 

was going on.”1 As a result, he contends that his plea was 

involuntary and that the court should have appointed him 

an interpreter.

[1] To support a finding that a defendant has entered a guilty 

plea freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, a 

court must inform a defendant concerning (1) the nature of 

the charge, (2) the right to assistance of counsel, (3) the right 

to confront witnesses against the defendant, (4) the right to 

a jury trial, and (5) the privilege against self-incrimination.2

The record must also establish a factual basis for the plea 

and that the defendant knew the range of penalties for the 

crime charged.3

[2,3] Courts have held that a defendant’s inability to comprehend criminal proceedings or communicate in English at 

such proceedings can result in a violation of the defendant’s 

due process and Sixth Amendment rights.4 But like most other 

courts,5 in State v. Topete,

6

 this court adopted an abuse of 

discretion standard for a court’s decision whether a defendant 

requires an interpreter:

1 Brief for appellant at 9.

2 State v. Ortega, 290 Neb. 172, 859 N.W.2d 305 (2015).

3 Id.

4 See 2 Barbara E. Bergman & Nancy Hollander, Wharton’s Criminal 

Evidence § 8:5 (15th ed. 1998 & Cum. Supp. 2015-16).

5 See, id.; Annot., 32 A.L.R.5th 149, § 29 (1995).

6 State v. Topete, 221 Neb. 771, 773, 380 N.W.2d 635, 636 (1986).
- 257 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

The appointment of an interpreter for an accused at 

trial is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the 

trial court.[7]

Even though a defendant might not speak grammatically correct English, where the record satisfactorily demonstrates that such defendant had a sufficient command 

of the English language to understand questions posed 

and answers given, there has been no abuse of discretion 

in refusing to appoint an interpreter.[8]

If a defendant understands and communicates reasonably well in the English language, the mere fact that such 

defendant might be able to accomplish self-expression a 

little better in another language does not warrant utilizing an interpreter at trial.[9]

Nebraska statutory law requires the appointment of an 

interpreter in a court proceeding . . . when the defendant 

is “unable to communicate the English language.”[10]

Section 25-2401 (Reissue 2008) is essentially the same as it 

was in 1986. It provides that it is

the policy of this state that the constitutional rights of 

persons unable to communicate the English language 

cannot be fully protected unless interpreters are available to assist such persons in legal proceedings. It is 

the intent of sections 25-2401 to 25-2407 to provide 

a procedure for the appointment of such interpreters 

to avoid injustice and to assist such persons in their 

own defense.

In 1987, the Legislature somewhat amended the interpreter 

statutes as part of a law requiring interpreters for deaf or hard 

7 Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86, 27 S. Ct. 456, 51 L. Ed. 722 

(1907); Prokop v. State, 148 Neb. 582, 28 N.W.2d 200 (1947).

8 State v. Faafiti, 54 Haw. 637, 513 P.2d 697 (1973).

9 Flores v. State, 509 S.W.2d 580 (Tex. Crim. 1974).

10 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2401 (Reissue 1979).
- 258 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

of hearing persons.11 The most significant change in chapter 

25 concerned the definition of deaf person.12 The legislative 

history does not suggest that the 1987 amendments were a 

response to Topete.

13

[4] Neither Bol nor his attorney requested an interpreter. 

This failure is not a waiver of Bol’s due process rights, but it 

is relevant to whether the court should have recognized on its 

own that Bol needed interpretative services. Generally,

the defendant in a criminal proceeding may be entitled to 

have an interpreter provided only where he or she timely 

requests one, or it is otherwise brought to the trial court’s 

attention that the defendant or a witness has a language 

difficulty that may prevent meaningful understanding of, 

or communication in, the proceeding.14

We conclude that the record shows that Bol had the 

ability to comprehend the proceedings and communicate in 

English. So the court did not violate Bol’s constitutional 

rights by accepting his no contest plea. Nor did it abuse its 

discretion by not appointing Bol an interpreter sua sponte. 

And the claimed language barrier did not render Bol’s plea 

involuntary.

Bol argues that he did not freely, intelligently, voluntarily, 

and understandingly enter his plea because no one told him 

about the range of penalties for first degree murder. At the 

court’s direction, the prosecutor told Bol that the punishment 

was “a term of life imprisonment. That is the sentence.” Bol 

suggests that the prosecutor should have instead stated that 

11 See 1987 Neb. Laws, L.B. 376, § 3, codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-152 

(Reissue 2012).

12 See 1987 Neb. Laws, L.B. 376, § 12.

13 See Judiciary Committee Hearing, L.B. 376, 90th Leg., 1st Sess. 1-8 (Feb. 

11, 1987).

14 32 A.L.R.5th, supra note 5, § 22 at 260.
- 259 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

“the minimum sentence was life imprisonment and the maximum sentence was life imprisonment.”15

We determine that Bol knew the penalty for his crime. First 

degree murder is a Class IA felony.16 Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 28-105(1) (Cum. Supp. 2014), the punishment for a Class IA 

felony is simply “Life imprisonment.” There is no maximum 

or minimum penalty.

Nor did the court err by telling Bol that pleading no contest to first degree murder would probably lower his chance 

of living in the United States or becoming a citizen, should 

Nebraska ever release Bol for “some reason unknown to us 

at this point.” The court had a duty to advise Bol about the 

immigration consequences of his plea under Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 29-1819.02(1) (Reissue 2008). Failure to do so could have 

allowed Bol to vacate his conviction.17

Finally, Bol argues that his attorney provided ineffective 

assistance by (1) failing to ensure that he understood his constitutional rights and the likely consequences of entering a 

plea; (2) failing to stop the plea hearing when it became apparent that Bol had no idea what was going on; and (3) failing to 

request an interpreter.

[5,6] To show that his counsel was ineffective, Bol must 

show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that 

counsel’s deficiency prejudiced him.18 The fact that a defendant raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct 

appeal does not necessarily mean that we can resolve it.19

The key is whether the record allows us to adequately review 

the question.20 We will not address an ineffective assistance 

15 Brief for appellant at 12.

16 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-303(2) (Reissue 2008).

17 § 29-1819.02(2).

18 See State v. Collins, 292 Neb. 602, 873 N.W.2d 657 (2016).

19 Id.

20 Id.
- 260 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

294 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. BOL

Cite as 294 Neb. 248

of counsel claim on direct appeal if it requires an evidentiary hearing.21

Here, the record on direct appeal shows that Bol’s counsel 

was not ineffective. Bol had the ability to comprehend the 

proceedings and communicate in English. The record shows 

that Bol had a sufficient command of the English language 

to understand the questions posed and the answers given. So 

his counsel was not ineffective for failing to ensure that Bol 

understood his constitutional rights, failing to stop the plea 

hearing, and failing to request an interpreter.

CONCLUSION

Bol understood the proceedings. His plea was voluntary, 

the court did not abuse its discretion by not appointing him 

an interpreter, and his counsel was not ineffective. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

21 Id.