- 308 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Angok B. Wal, appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 22, 2019. No. S-18-446.

1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of 

law that an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.

2. ____: ____. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary 

meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to 

ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and 

unambiguous.

3. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. Components of a series or collection of 

statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and 

should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the 

intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.

4. Sentences: Probation and Parole. Under the plain language of Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016), a trial court has only one option 

upon revoking a term of post-release supervision for noncompliance: 

imposing a term of incarceration up to the remaining period of postrelease supervision.

5. ____: ____. When a court has revoked post-release supervision, the 

maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is governed exclusively by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016) and does not 

depend on the maximum sentence of initial imprisonment authorized 

under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016).

6. Sentences: Probation and Parole: Appeal and Error. Upon revocation 

of post-release supervision, a sentencing court has discretion under Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016) to impose any term of imprisonment up to the remaining period of post-release supervision, and an 

appellate court will not disturb the court’s decision absent an abuse 

of discretion.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

05/03/2019 08:07 AM CDT
- 309 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefan

A. Martinez, Judge. Affirm

Jeffrey S. Leuschen and Liam K. Meehan, of Schirber & 

Wagner, L.L.P., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg, 

Stacy, 

Angok B. Wal pled guilty to a Class IV felony and was 

sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment followed by 12 months’ 

post-release supervision. Shortly after the period of postrelease supervision began, the State moved to revoke, alleging 

Wal had violated several conditions. Wal admitted the violations, after which the district court revoked the post-release 

supervision and imposed a term of 8 months’ imprisonment in 

the county jail.

Wal appeals. He argues that because he has completed 

a 20-month prison sentence, the district court’s imposition 

of an 8-month jail term upon revoking post-release supervision resulted in imprisonment for a total of 28 months for a 

Class IV felony, and therefore exceeded the maximum sentence 

of 24 months’ imprisonment authorized by law.1 Wal’s position 

fundamentally misconstrues the applicable statutory scheme, 

and we reject it as meritless. Finding no abuse of discretion in 

the imposition of an 8-month jail term, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In June 2016, Wal was charged with one count of criminal 

mischief, one count of obstructing a peace officer, and one 

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016).
- 310 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

count of obstructing government operations. In November, he 

entered a guilty plea to an amended information charging only 

criminal mischief (a Class IV felony) and obstruction of government operations (a Class I misdemeanor). The maximum 

sentence for a Class IV felony is 24 months’ imprisonment and 

12 months’ post-release supervision.2 The maximum sentence 

for a Class I misdemeanor is 12 months’ imprisonment and a 

fine of $1,000.3

Wal was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment and 12 

months’ post-release supervision on the felony conviction and 

to a concurrent term of 12 months’ imprisonment on the 

misdemeanor. The order of post-release supervision included 

conditions requiring Wal to report regularly as directed by his 

probation officer, provide proof of employment, abstain from 

the use of alcohol, obtain a chemical dependency or mental 

health examination, submit to regular drug and alcohol testing, 

and perform 60 hours of community service.

On July 3, 2017, Wal was released from prison and began 

his period of post-release supervision. Almost immediately, he 

failed to comply with the conditions of that supervision. On 

October 5, the State filed a motion seeking to revoke his postrelease supervision. When Wal failed to appear in court on the 

motion, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

On April 2, 2018, Wal was arrested on the warrant. 

Thereafter, he was arraigned on the motion to revoke and 

admitted violating the conditions of his post-release supervision. The State’s factual basis indicated that after being 

released from prison, Wal failed to report for mandatory probation appointments, failed to recharge the global positioning 

system monitor on his ankle, did not attend required appointments or drug and alcohol testing, did not obtain a chemical 

dependency evaluation, did not attend drug treatment, did not 

2 Id.

3 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-106 (Reissue 2016).
- 311 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

complete any community service hours, and did not pay his 

probation enrollment fees.

The court found that Wal’s period of post-release supervision began on July 3, 2017, and the parties eventually stipulated that Wal absconded from that supervision after just 14 

days. The court accepted Wal’s admission, found he had violated the conditions of his post-release supervision, and set the 

matter for further disposition.

At the dispositional hearing on April 25, 2018, the court 

revoked Wal’s post-release supervision and imposed a term 

of 8 months’ imprisonment in the county jail. Wal filed this 

timely appeal, and we moved the case to our docket on our 

own motion.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Wal assigns, restated, that after revoking his post-release 

supervision, it was error for the trial court to impose 8 months’ 

imprisonment because doing so resulted in a total term of 

imprisonment that exceeded the statutory maximum for 

Class IV felonies.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Statutory interpretation is a question of law that an 

appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.4

ANALYSIS

Wal does not challenge either the finding that he violated his 

post-release supervision or the court’s decision to revoke his 

post-release supervision and impose a term of imprisonment. 

He challenges only the length of that imprisonment, arguing 

that when it is added to the prison sentence he already served, 

he will serve a total of 28 months’ imprisonment for a Class IV 

felony, when the maximum term of imprisonment authorized 

by § 28-105 is 24 months.

4 State v. Ralios, 301 Neb. 1027, 921 N.W.2d 362 (2019).
- 312 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

[2,3] In considering Wal’s arguments, we are guided by 

familiar rules of statutory construction. Statutory language is 

to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate 

court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning 

of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.5

Components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining 

to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and should be 

conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent 

of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, 

harmonious, and sensible.6

Post-release supervision remains a relatively new concept in 

Nebraska sentencing law.7 As defined by the Legislature:

Post-release supervision means the portion of a split sentence following a period of incarceration under which 

a person found guilty of a crime upon verdict or plea 

is released by a court subject to conditions imposed by 

the court and subject to supervision by the [Office of 

Probation Administration].8

Revocation of post-release supervision is governed by Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016), which provides:

If the court finds that a probationer serving a term of 

post-release supervision did violate a condition of his 

or her post-release supervision, it may revoke the postrelease supervision and impose on the offender a term of 

imprisonment up to the remaining period of post-release 

supervision. The term shall be served in an institution 

under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correctional 

Services or in county jail subject to subsection (2) of section 28-105.

[4] Under the plain language of § 29-2268(2), a trial court 

has only one option upon revoking a term of post-release 

5 State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895, 921 N.W.2d 77 (2018).

6 Id.

7 State v. Kennedy, 299 Neb. 362, 908 N.W.2d 69 (2018).

8 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2246(13) (Reissue 2016); Kennedy, supra note 7.
- 313 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

supervision for noncompliance: imposing a term of incarceration up to the remaining period of post-release supervision.9

Without this option, a defendant would be able to frustrate the 

goals of post-release supervision—and avoid serving the second portion of his or her split sentence—simply by refusing to 

comply with the terms of supervision.

Here, Wal completed the first portion of his split sentence 

by serving 20 months’ imprisonment. But he failed to comply 

with the second portion of his split sentence, his post-release 

supervision, and the court revoked it. Wal contends that when 

a court revokes post-release supervision and imposes a term of 

imprisonment, it is constrained not only by the time remaining on post-release supervision, but, also, by the maximum 

term of imprisonment authorized by § 28-105 for the first 

portion of the split sentence. We reject this contention as 

inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the plain language 

of § 29-2268(2).

[5] We hold that when a court has revoked post-release 

supervision, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be 

imposed is governed exclusively by § 29-2268(2) and does 

not depend on the maximum sentence of initial imprisonment authorized under § 28-105. Upon revoking Wal’s postrelease supervision, the district court was statutorily authorized to impose a term of imprisonment up to the remaining 

period of his post-release supervision, without regard to the 

amount of imprisonment ordered on the first portion of his 

split sentence.

[6] Because a sentencing court has discretion under 

§ 29-2268(2) to impose, upon revocation, any term of imprisonment up to the remaining period of post-release supervision, an appellate court will not disturb that decision absent 

an abuse of discretion. At the dispositional hearing in this 

case, the parties did not dispute the period of time remaining 

on Wal’s post-release supervision. Wal had been sentenced 

9 See Kennedy, supra note 7.
- 314 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. WAL

Cite as 302 Neb. 308

to 12 months’ post-release supervision, and the parties stipulated he had served only 14 days of that supervision before 

absconding. Thus, on the day revocation was ordered, Wal had 

considerably more than 8 months remaining on his term of 

post-release supervision. The district court’s order imposing 

a term of 8 months’ imprisonment was within the maximum 

term authorized by § 29-2268(2) and was not an abuse of discretion. The order of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed