- 352 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Robert S. Honken, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed December 12, 2017. No. A-17-195.

1. Double Jeopardy: Lesser-Included Offenses: Appeal and Error.

Whether two provisions are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes presents a question of law, on which an appellate court reaches a 

conclusion independent of the court below.

2. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion 

by the trial court.

3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a 

trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, 

and evidence.

4. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel may be determined on direct appeal is 

a question of law.

5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, 

an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the lower 

court’s conclusion.

6. Double Jeopardy. The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and 

Nebraska constitutions protect against three distinct abuses: (1) a second 

prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution 

for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for 

the same offense.

7. Constitutional Law: Double Jeopardy. The protection provided by 

Nebraska’s double jeopardy clause is coextensive with that provided 

under the U.S. Constitution.

8. Criminal Law: Conspiracy: Double Jeopardy. Under the Double 

Jeopardy Clause, the subdivision of a single criminal conspiracy into 

multiple violations of one conspiracy statute is prohibited.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

12/12/2017 09:10 AM CST
- 353 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

9. Double Jeopardy. The traditional test used to determine whether two 

charged offenses constitute only one offense is the Blockburger v. 

United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), or 

“same evidence,” test.

10. ____. Under the Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 

180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), or “same evidence,” test, the offenses are 

considered identical for double jeopardy purposes where the evidence 

required to support conviction on one offense is sufficient to support 

conviction on the other offense.

11. ____. A totality of the circumstances test for purposes of double jeopardy considers five factors: (1) time, (2) identity of the alleged coconspirators, (3) the specific offenses charged, (4) the nature and scope of 

the activity, and (5) location.

12. Conspiracy. The principal element of a conspiracy is an agreement or 

understanding between two or more persons to inflict a wrong against or 

injury upon another, although an overt act is also required.

13. ____. A conspiracy is ongoing until the central purposes of the conspiracy have either failed or been achieved.

14. Conspiracy: Proof: Presumptions. Upon proof of participation in a 

conspiracy, a conspirator’s continuing participation is presumed unless 

the conspirator demonstrates affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy.

15. Conspiracy. Withdrawal from a conspiracy must be effectuated by more 

than ceasing, however definitively, to participate in the conspiracy.

16. ____. A coconspirator must make an affirmative action either by making 

a clean break to the authorities or by communicating abandonment in a 

manner calculated to reach coconspirators and must not resume participation in the conspiracy.

17. ____. In order to constitute multiple conspiracies, the agreements must 

be distinct and independent from each other.

18. ____. There may be a continuing conspiracy with changing coconspirators so long as there are never fewer than two conspirators.

19. ____. A gap wherein there are fewer than two coconspirators breaks the 

continuity and the subsequent appearance of a new and different coconspirator creates a new and separate conspiracy.

20. ____. It is necessary for one conspiracy to end before a second distinct 

and separate conspiracy can be formed; the question is whether there 

was a break, for an appreciable time, in the sequence of events, in order 

to categorize the agreements as separate and distinct.

21. ____. As a practical matter, the fact that a conspirator in a two-person 

conspiracy seeks a replacement for a departed would-be cohort is a 

strong indication of the failure of one conspiracy and the creation 

of another.
- 354 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

22. Sentences. When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to 

consider factors such as the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) 

education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past 

criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation 

for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the 

amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime. However, 

the sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically applied set 

of factors.

23. ____. 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 the facts and circumstances surrounding 

the defendant’s life.

24. ____. Traditionally, a sentencing court is accorded very wide discretion 

in determining an appropriate sentence.

25. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. When a defendant’s trial 

counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective 

performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the 

record. Otherwise, the issue will be procedurally barred.

26. Effectiveness of Counsel: Records: Appeal and Error. The fact that 

an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal does 

not necessarily mean that it can be resolved. The determining factor is 

whether the record is sufficient to adequately review the question.

27. Trial: Effectiveness of Counsel: Evidence: Appeal and Error. An 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim will not be addressed on direct 

appeal if it requires an evidentiary hearing.

Appeal from the District Court for Hamilton County: Rachel

A. Daugherty, Judge. Affirmed.

Mitchell C. Stehlik, of Lauritsen, Brownell, Brostrom & 

Stehlik, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. 

Vincent for appellee.

Inbody, Pirtle, and Riedmann, Judges.

Riedmann, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Following a stipulated bench trial, Robert S. Honken was 

found guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit first degree 
- 355 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

murder. The district court for Hamilton County sentenced him 

to 45 to 50 years’ imprisonment on each count, to be served 

concurrently. Honken now appeals his convictions and sentences. Following our review of the record, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Honken’s attempt to hire two different men to kill his wife. The parties agreed upon the following 

stipulated facts, which were submitted at trial:

On January 16, 2016, Honken contacted Derrick Shirley 

via text message regarding a construction job. Honken and 

Shirley met at Honken’s residence on January 18. After meeting, Honken asked Shirley if he would kill Honken’s wife. The 

parties entered into an agreement wherein Shirley would kill 

Honken’s wife in exchange for monetary compensation.

Honken and Shirley communicated primarily through text 

messages. Following Shirley’s subsequent arrest, law enforcement recovered 659 text messages between the parties from 

Shirley’s cell phone. In the messages, Honken provided a 

substantial amount of information regarding his wife, her 

residence and property, and her daily routine to assist Shirley 

in planning her murder. The parties also discussed how the 

murder would occur, and Honken requested on several occasions that Shirley make the incident look like a robbery. 

Shirley admitted that in the course of his agreement with 

Honken, he drove by Honken’s wife’s residence approximately 20 times.

Honken gave Shirley $400 for the purchase of a firearm to 

kill his wife. Shirley asked a friend to purchase the weapon, a 

.22-caliber rifle, for him. The rifle was purchased on February 

10, 2016, and Shirley took possession of it. Law enforcement 

later recovered the rifle from his residence.

The final message between Honken and Shirley was sent 

on February 16, 2016. In that message, Honken wrote to 

Shirley:

“I was just wanting to say thank you for backing down 

when you did. I had a short talk and I think it’s going to 
- 356 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

lead to more talks and possibly a [sic] end to all of this? 

I have [a] friend that said I have through the duration of 

the divorce to prove to her that I want things to work 

out. I have deleted the messages on my cloud and phone. 

Thank you again for backing down and I don’t want you 

to ever reconsider what I requested of you before. I think 

it was a God [sic] thing that you stepped back. I would 

like the .22 when it works out because I have a friend 

down in the Harvard area that said he would keep it so 

me and the boys can rabbit hunt around his farm! I can’t 

thank you enough for heading [sic] the call and backing 

down. This and any other messages will be deleted but 

I’ll keep your contact information in the event we’re able 

to work things out and de [sic] the remodel work. Thanks 

again. . . .”

Shirley later told law enforcement that he did not go through 

with the murder of Honken’s wife because he “had prayed 

about it and just did not have the heart.” Shirley had no further communication with Honken after the final message that 

Honken sent on February 16, 2016.

On February 24, 2016, Honken left a voice mail for Mario 

Flores regarding remodeling work at his home. In his voice 

mail, Honken identified himself as “Sam.” Flores returned 

the call the next day, and the parties agreed to meet at a 

gas station in Aurora, Nebraska, on February 26. During the 

meeting, Honken asked Flores if he knew anyone “who could 

help him kill his wife.” Flores responded that he did know 

people who could help, but that he would not get involved in 

it himself.

That same day, Flores contacted the Aurora Police 

Department to report his contact with “Sam.” Flores met with 

an investigator from the Nebraska State Patrol, and during 

the meeting, Flores made a telephone call to “Sam” that was 

recorded by law enforcement. During the call, “Sam” stated 

multiple times that he wanted his wife to be killed, discussed 

the cost of hiring someone to do so, and discussed how and 
- 357 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

when he would like her murder to occur. “Sam” repeatedly 

affirmed that he was serious about killing her and identified himself as “Robert,” the owner of a business in Aurora. 

Honken told Flores that he had previously paid someone 

else $400 to kill his wife but that person had backed out and 

taken his money. While Honken stated he did not recall that 

person’s name, he provided sufficient information that law 

enforcement was able to identify him as Shirley.

Flores told Honken that he did have the name and telephone 

number of someone Honken could hire and that this person 

would contact him in the next several days. Later that day, 

Honken texted Flores from a different telephone number and 

stated that he “would like the hitman” to contact him at that 

number because it was a prepaid cell phone and he intended to 

dispose of it when he no longer needed it.

On February 29, 2016, an investigator with the Nebraska 

State Patrol made a recorded telephone call to the number 

Honken provided and posed as a potential hitman. During the 

call, Honken identified himself as both “Rob” and “Sam.” 

Honken advised the investigator that he was in need of his 

services. The investigator stated that he would call Honken 

again with a time and place for them to meet, and Honken 

responded that he would be able to do so.

Several hours later, the investigator placed another call to 

Honken and instructed Honken to meet him at a truckstop in 

Aurora. Honken drove to the specified location and met with 

the investigator in the investigator’s vehicle. The investigator wore a wire during the meeting to record his conversation 

with Honken.

Honken told the investigator that he wanted his wife 

“‘gone’” and that he would like her to be killed by March 

4, 2016. When the investigator requested “$3000 up front,” 

Honken said that he would be able to obtain the money within 

several days. He provided the investigator with a photograph of his wife, as well as a map of her residence. Honken 

showed the investigator his driver’s license, identifying him 
- 358 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

as Honken, and stated that the address on his license was his 

wife’s current address. Honken provided the investigator with 

information as to what type of vehicle his wife drove and 

when she was likely to be home alone. He also requested that 

the investigator make her death “look like a robbery” and said 

that he wanted it to be done “‘quick and easy.’”

The investigator requested $500 for expenses. Honken withdrew the funds from an automated teller machine inside the 

truckstop and gave them to the investigator.

Honken was pulled over shortly after departing the truckstop and placed under arrest. He admitted to law enforcement 

that he had hired Shirley and the undercover investigator to 

kill his wife. Regarding his agreement with Shirley, Honken 

stated that Shirley had contacted him approximately 3 weeks 

prior because he had gotten “cold feet” and decided not to go 

forward with their plan.

In March 2016, the State charged Honken with two counts 

of conspiracy to commit first degree murder in the county 

court for Hamilton County. Following a preliminary hearing, 

the county court found probable cause and bound the case over 

to the district court. Honken was charged with the same two 

counts, both Class II felonies, in district court. In the information, the State charged Honken in count I with conspiracy 

that began on or about January 1 through February 26, 2016. 

Count II charged Honken with conspiracy that began on or 

about February 26 through 29.

Honken filed a plea in abatement, asserting that the evidence 

at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to show probable 

cause that the alleged offenses had been committed and that 

he had committed them. At a hearing on his motion, Honken 

argued that he should have been charged with only one count 

of conspiracy rather than two. The district court overruled 

Honken’s motion, finding that there was probable cause for 

two separate offenses.

Following the denial of his plea in abatement, Honken filed 

a motion to dismiss either count of the information, claiming 
- 359 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

that charging him with both counts violated his right against 

double jeopardy. In response, the State filed an amended 

information in which it shortened the time period during 

which it alleged count I occurred. The amended information 

asserted that the first offense occurred between January 16 

and February 16, 2016, rather than between January 1 and 

February 26.

Honken waived his right to a jury trial, and a hearing on his 

motion to dismiss occurred simultaneously with his bench trial 

on the stipulated facts set forth above. The district court overruled Honken’s motion to dismiss, finding that Honken had 

engaged in two separate conspiracies, and found him guilty 

of two counts of conspiracy to commit first degree murder. 

Honken was sentenced to 45 to 50 years’ imprisonment on each 

conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Honken 

now appeals from his convictions and sentences.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Honken assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1) 

violating his right against double jeopardy by convicting and 

sentencing him to multiple punishments for the same offense 

and (2) imposing excessive sentences. Honken also argues that 

he received ineffective assistance of his trial counsel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Whether two provisions are the same offense for double 

jeopardy purposes presents a question of law, on which an 

appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the court 

below. State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78, 802 N.W.2d 77 (2011).

[2,3] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed 

within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the 

trial court. State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 

(2017). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable 

or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, 

and evidence. Id.
- 360 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

[4,5] Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel may be determined on direct appeal is a question of 

law. Id. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court 

resolves the questions independently of the lower court’s conclusion. State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014, 893 N.W.2d 

706 (2017).

ANALYSIS

Double Jeopardy.

Honken argues that the district court erred in overruling his 

plea in abatement and his motion to dismiss and subsequently 

finding him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit 

first degree murder. He claims that his actions constituted one 

continuous conspiracy and that his convictions for two separate counts therefore violate his right against double jeopardy. 

Honken asserts that he had the same objective throughout the 

course of his agreements with both men he hired to kill his 

wife and that the addition of a new coconspirator did not mean 

that his original conspiracy with Shirley had ended.

[6-8] The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and 

Nebraska constitutions protect against three distinct abuses: 

(1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. 

State v. Kleckner, 291 Neb. 539, 867 N.W.2d 273 (2015). The 

protection provided by Nebraska’s double jeopardy clause is 

coextensive with that provided under the U.S. Constitution. Id. 

Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the subdivision of a single 

criminal conspiracy into multiple violations of one conspiracy 

statute is prohibited. See United States v. Thomas, 759 F.2d 

659 (8th Cir. 1985).

[9-11] “The traditional test used to determine whether [two 

charged offenses constitute only one] offense is the Blockburger

‘same evidence’ test.” See United States v. Thomas, 759 F.2d at 

661. See, also, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 

S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932). Under this test, the offenses 
- 361 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

are considered identical for double jeopardy purposes where the 

evidence required to support conviction on one offense is sufficient to support conviction on the other offense. See United 

States v. Thomas, supra. However, the “‘same evidence’” test 

has been found to be of questionable value in cases involving 

issues of conspiracy and double jeopardy due to the possibility that prosecutors could rely on the use of such test to draw 

up two sets of charges that include different overt acts. See id. 

at 662. Instead, other courts have adopted a “‘totality of the 

circumstances’” test that considers five factors: (1) time, (2) 

identity of the alleged coconspirators, (3) the specific offenses 

charged, (4) the nature and scope of the activity, and (5) location. See id.

[12-16] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-202(1) (Reissue 2008) provides:

A person shall be guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with 

intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a 

felony:

(a) He agrees with one or more persons that they or 

one or more of them shall engage in or solicit the conduct 

or shall cause or solicit the result specified by the definition of the offense; and

(b) He or another person with whom he conspired 

commits an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that the principal element of a conspiracy is an agreement or understanding between 

two or more persons to inflict a wrong against or injury upon 

another, although an overt act is also required. See State 

v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834, 875 N.W.2d 374 (2016). Section 

28-202(3) states that “[i]f a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as 

such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or 

continuous conspiratorial relationship.” A conspiracy is ongoing until the central purposes of the conspiracy have either 

failed or been achieved. Id. Indeed, upon proof of participation in a conspiracy, a conspirator’s continuing participation 

is presumed unless the conspirator demonstrates affirmative 
- 362 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

withdrawal from the conspiracy. Id. Such withdrawal must be 

effectuated by more than ceasing, however definitively, to participate in the conspiracy. See id. Rather, a coconspirator must 

make an affirmative action either by making a clean break to 

the authorities or by communicating abandonment in a manner 

calculated to reach coconspirators and must not resume participation in the conspiracy. See id.

Honken argues that the district court violated his right 

against double jeopardy because his actions constituted one 

continuous conspiracy with both men he hired to kill his wife. 

He claims that he had the same objective throughout and 

that the only element that changed was the addition of a new 

coconspirator. Honken asserts that the district court’s finding 

that his original agreement with Shirley had ended was in error 

because the central purposes of that conspiracy had neither 

failed nor been achieved, and therefore was ongoing.

We find little Nebraska case law that is pertinent to the 

determination of when one conspiracy ends for purposes of 

double jeopardy. However, looking beyond Nebraska, we find 

the analysis contained in Savage v. State, 212 Md. App. 1, 66 

A.3d 1049 (2013) instructive. In Savage v. State, the defendant was sentenced on two counts of conspiracy to commit 

first-degree burglary. On appeal, he argued that the convictions violated double jeopardy principles because he was 

involved in only one conspiracy. The State argued, however, 

that his agreements with two separate individuals constituted 

two conspiracies.

[17-21] The court in Savage v. State, supra, found that 

in order to constitute multiple conspiracies, the agreements 

must be distinct and independent from each other. See id. It 

held that there may be a continuing conspiracy with changing coconspirators so long as there are never less than two 

conspirators. See id. Such a gap breaks the continuity and 

the subsequent appearance of a new and different coconspirator creates a new and separate conspiracy. See id. The court 

summarized:
- 363 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

[I]t is necessary for one conspiracy to end before a second distinct and separate conspiracy can be formed. . 

. . The question is whether there was a “break,” for an 

“appreciable time, in the sequence of events,” in order to 

“categorize” the agreements as “separate and distinct.” 

Purnell v. State, 375 Md. 678, 698, 827 A.2d 68 (2003). 

As a practical matter, the fact that a conspirator in a twoperson conspiracy seeks a replacement for a departed 

would-be cohort is a strong indication of the failure of 

one conspiracy and the creation of another.

Savage v. State, 212 Md. App. at 25-26, 66 A.3d at 1063.

In the present case, while the statutory offenses that Honken 

was charged with in both counts were identical, the counts 

alleged that the offenses occurred over different and distinct 

time periods. The amended information charged Honken, in 

count I, with conspiracy to commit first degree murder on or 

about January 16 through February 16, 2016. Count II charged 

Honken with the same statutory offense, but alleged that it 

occurred on or about February 26 through 29. As charged by 

the State, a 10-day break separates the first conspiracy from 

the second.

The stipulated facts presented at trial further support this 

break in the timeline. The district court received into evidence 

copies of the 659 text messages that Honken exchanged with 

Shirley. The text messages began on or about January 16, 

2016, and the last message was sent to Shirley from Honken 

on February 16. The content of the final message that Honken 

sent to Shirley repeatedly thanked Shirley for “backing out 

of the plot” and “‘backing down.’” It further indicated that 

Honken had spoken with his wife and believed an end to 

“‘all of this’” may be forthcoming. He stated that he did not 

want Shirley to ever reconsider what he had previously asked 

Shirley to do. The stipulated facts also state that, while being 

questioned following his arrest, Honken told law enforcement 

that Shirley had contacted him approximately 3 weeks before 

and “said he was getting cold feet and decided to not go 
- 364 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

forward with killing [Honken’s wife].” Honken then attempted 

to contact Flores on February 24, and the pair met on February 

26. It was during this meeting that Honken asked if Flores 

knew anyone who would kill his wife.

It is apparent from the February 16, 2016, text that Shirley 

had advised Honken by that date that he no longer wanted to 

participate in the murder conspiracy. Ten days later, Honken 

asked Flores if he knew anyone who would kill his wife. This 

time period constitutes a break in the sequence of events sufficient to categorize the agreements as separate and distinct. 

The facts do not indicate that Honken was in contact with anyone regarding his plan to kill his wife during that time nor did 

he have an agreement with anyone to do so. In fact, his final 

message to Shirley on February 16 indicated that he no longer 

wished to pursue his plan to kill her and Honken specifically 

asked Shirley to never reconsider his previous request to kill 

his wife. While Honken later entered into an agreement with 

the same objective, this gap of 10 days between such agreements and the addition of a new and different coconspirator 

suggests that the later agreement was a new and separate 

conspiracy. See Savage v. State, 212 Md. App. 1, 66 A.3d 

1049 (2013).

Furthermore, under Nebraska law, a conspirator may withdraw from a conspiracy through an affirmative action. One 

such manner of withdrawal is through communication of 

abandonment in a manner that is calculated to reach coconspirators and subsequent nonparticipation in the conspiracy. 

See State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834, 875 N.W.2d 374 (2016). 

Here, it is clear that Shirley effectively communicated his 

abandonment of the conspiracy to Honken, his only coconspirator, and that Honken in fact received such communication, as he acknowledged in his final message to Shirley. It 

is undisputed that following February 16, 2016, Shirley had 

no additional communication with Honken nor did he later 

resume his participation in the conspiracy. These actions 

constitute Shirley’s withdrawal from the conspiracy, effective 
- 365 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

February 16. As a conspiracy necessarily requires an agreement between two or more persons, the affirmative withdrawal of one coconspirator from a two-person conspiracy 

terminates that conspiracy.

We also look to the totality of the circumstances test outlined in United States v. Thomas, 759 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1985), 

and the five factors used there in determining whether Honken 

had engaged in multiple conspiracies or one continuous conspiracy. The first factor to consider is time. As discussed 

above, the two counts of conspiracy cover two separate and 

distinct time periods: the first count occurred from January 

16 to February 16, 2016, and the second count occurred from 

February 26 to 29. The stipulated facts do not allege any overlap between the two time periods, which are separated by a 

period of 10 days.

The second factor to consider is the identity of the coconspirators. Here, Honken’s coconspirator in count I was Shirley. 

The evidence indicates that he withdrew from the conspiracy 

on or about February 16, 2016, and did not resume participation. The second count of conspiracy involved Honken contacting Flores, who then connected him with the undercover 

investigator that Honken believed he had hired to kill his wife. 

There is no overlap of identity between the coconspirators 

involved in counts I and II.

The third factor is the specific offenses charged. Both counts 

were brought under the same statute, § 28-202(4), as conspiracy to commit first degree murder.

The fourth factor is the nature and scope of the activity. While the objectives in both counts are the same, to kill 

Honken’s wife, the overt acts taken in furtherance of this 

objective differ. In count I, Honken’s agreement with Shirley, 

it is alleged that in pursuance of the objective, one or both of 

the parties exchanged $400, purchased a .22-caliber rifle, and 

drove around the residence of Honken’s wife. Furthermore, it 

is clear from the text messages between Honken and Shirley 

that Honken provided substantial information regarding the 
- 366 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

residence and his wife’s routine to Shirley and that Shirley 

used that information to surveil Honken’s wife and her property and even make contact with her. Shirley admitted that he 

had driven by her property approximately 20 times during the 

course of his agreement with Honken.

In count II, Honken’s contact with Flores and subsequent 

agreement with the undercover investigator, it is alleged that 

in pursuance of the objective, one or both parties met at a 

previously specified location to discuss a murder for hire, paid 

$500 as a downpayment for the murder of Honken’s wife, and 

provided the undercover officer posing as a hitman with a photograph of Honken’s wife, as well as her address. While there 

are similarities between some of the overt acts taken in both 

counts and all of the acts were taken in pursuance of the same 

objective, there is no overlap between specific acts, and the 

actors, other than Honken, are entirely different.

The final factor to consider is location. Everything alleged 

in both counts took place in Hamilton County, Nebraska. 

However, in count I, the initial meeting between Honken 

and Shirley took place at Honken’s residence in Aurora and 

Shirley’s subsequent surveillance of Honken’s wife took place 

in and around rural Hamilton County. In count II, the initial 

meeting between Honken and Flores took place at a gas station 

in Aurora and his meeting with the undercover officer took 

place at a truckstop in Aurora. The locations involved in each 

of the two counts are in relative proximity to one another but 

they do not overlap as to any specific locations.

After taking all five factors into consideration, we find that 

Honken engaged in two separate and distinct conspiracies. 

While there are some similarities between several of the factors, the only one in which there was overlap was the offenses 

charged. We do not find this factor dispositive. The remaining 

factors and surrounding facts indicate that Honken participated 

in two conspiracies that were separate in time, involved different coconspirators, and involved distinct locations and acts 

taken in furtherance of the conspiracies.
- 367 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

Honken’s reliance on the proposition of law that a conspiracy is ongoing until its purpose has either failed or been 

achieved is misplaced. He ignores the fact that a conspirator 

may withdraw from a conspiracy through an affirmative act. 

We find that Shirley did withdraw from the conspiracy on or 

before February 16, 2016, which terminated the conspiracy 

with Honken. Honken did not engage in a new agreement 

with anyone to kill his wife until 10 days later, at his meeting 

with Flores. Shirley’s withdrawal and the 10-day break in time 

between the two agreements indicate that Honken’s subsequent 

conspiracy was separate and distinct from the first. This is further supported by the differences between the parties involved 

in each agreement, the specific locations involved, and the 

overt acts taken in furtherance of the agreements.

Because we determine that the district court correctly found 

that Honken engaged in two separate and distinct conspiracies, we find no double jeopardy violation and no merit to this 

assignment of error.

Excessive Sentences.

Honken argues that the district court erred in imposing 

excessive sentences. He claims that the court did not adequately consider mitigating factors such as his mental health 

issues and the lack of violence in the commission of the 

offenses. Honken also argues that the district court appeared to 

sentence him for each conviction as if the underlying offense, 

the murder of his wife, had taken place, rather than sentencing 

him for the conspiracy to commit such offense.

[22-24] When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is 

to consider factors such as the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural 

background, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding 

conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the 

nature of the offense and (8) the amount of violence involved 

in the commission of the crime. However, the sentencing court 

is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors. 
- 368 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537, 894 N.W.2d 331 (2017). 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 the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. Id. Traditionally, a 

sentencing court is accorded very wide discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 

N.W.2d 669 (2017).

Honken was found guilty of two counts of conspiracy to 

commit first degree murder, a Class II felony, and was sentenced to 45 to 50 years’ imprisonment on each count, to be 

served concurrently. He was also given credit for 327 days 

served. Class II felonies are punishable by a minimum of 1 

year’s imprisonment and a maximum of 50 years’ imprisonment. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016). Honken’s sentences are both within the statutory limits.

Honken argues that the district court did not give adequate 

consideration to mitigating factors, such as his use of alcohol, 

sleeping pills, and OxyContin around the time of the offenses, 

as well as his prior suicidal thoughts. Honken claims that he 

had previously been a “law-abiding citizen” with only two traffic offenses on his record. Brief for appellant at 28. He argues 

that he was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder subsequent 

to his incarceration and believes his mental health issues had 

affected his actions in this case. Honken claims that the district 

court should have considered the fact that there was no physical violence involved in the commission of the offenses and 

that no one was physically harmed.

The evidence shows that Honken sought out two different 

men to kill his wife over a month apart and then planned how 

the murder was to occur in a deliberate and calculated manner. 

Honken’s actions included frequent contacts with these men, 

often on a daily or near-daily basis. While Honken alleges 

that he was using various substances around the time of the 

offenses, nothing in the record suggests that he was under 

the influence of any such substances during the commission 
- 369 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

of the offenses, which took place during a period of greater 

than 1 month. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest that 

his mental health was impaired either by his past suicidal 

thoughts or by any bipolar-related disorder when he committed these offenses.

Honken argues that no one was physically harmed in the 

commission of these offenses. However, as the district court 

pointed out at sentencing, that was due only to intervening 

actors. It is clear from the content of Honken’s messages to 

the hitmen and the desperation of his tone that Honken’s wife 

would have been dead if it had been up to him. While Honken 

argues that the district court improperly sentenced him as if 

the murder had actually occurred, such argument is not supported by the record. The sentences imposed were properly 

within the statutory limits for conspiracy to commit first 

degree murder.

We note that in imposing its sentences, the district court 

stated that it had considered the factors in Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 29-2260 (Supp. 2015), the presentence investigation report, 

the hundreds of text messages between Honken and Shirley, 

Honken’s statements to probation and during allocution, the 

victim impact statement and accompanying letters from the 

victim’s friends and family, Honken’s diagnosis of unspecified bipolar disorder and unspecified personality disorder, 

his history of anger issues, the fact that on several occasions 

Honken sought to have the underlying crime committed in 

front of his children, the eight sentencing factors specified 

above, and Honken’s lack of acceptance of responsibility for 

his actions.

The crimes for which Honken was convicted were extremely 

serious and put his wife at great risk of bodily harm or death. 

Honken’s persistence in seeking out someone to kill his wife 

is alarming, as are the lengths he went to in order to plan 

her death, such as providing her photograph, a map of her 

residence, details about her daily routine, and suggestions for 

how her death could occur. Honken made a lengthy statement 
- 370 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

both in the presentence investigation report and during allocution, but he shifted blame for his actions onto Shirley, onto a 

friend who allegedly came up with the idea, and even onto his 

wife, whom he continued to blame for her shortcomings as a 

spouse. We do not believe that Honken truly understands the 

very serious nature of these offenses nor does he understand 

the consequences that his actions have had on others, including 

his three children. Because the sentences that were imposed 

are properly within the statutory limits, we find no abuse of 

discretion by the district court.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Honken claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise potential defenses arising out of his mental health 

issues. He argues that the presentence investigation report 

indicated that around the time of the offenses, he had been 

drinking, as well as using sleeping pills and OxyContin; that he 

had previous suicidal thoughts; and that he had been later diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Although trial counsel raised these 

issues at sentencing, Honken claims that they should have been 

raised earlier as potential affirmative defenses.

[25-27] When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from 

his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise 

on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent 

from the record. Otherwise, the issue will be procedurally 

barred. State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 (2017). 

However, the fact that an ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim is raised on direct appeal does not necessarily mean that 

it can be resolved. The determining factor is whether the record 

is sufficient to adequately review the question. Id. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim will not be addressed on direct 

appeal if it requires an evidentiary hearing. State v. Abdullah, 

289 Neb. 123, 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014).

Honken contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to raise his mental health issues as potential affirmative 
- 371 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

25 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. HONKEN

Cite as 25 Neb. App. 352

defenses. However, we find that the record before us on direct 

appeal is insufficient to resolve this claim. We have nothing 

before us indicating whether Honken’s trial counsel contemplated raising such issues as potential defenses, whether his 

failure to do so was strategic, when Honken’s psychological 

evaluation took place, or what the results were of such an 

evaluation. Accordingly, we cannot determine based on the 

record before us whether Honken’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

CONCLUSION

Following our review of the record, we find Honken’s 

assignments of error to be without merit or without a sufficient 

record to resolve on direct appeal and therefore affirm.

Affirmed.