- 701 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Ronald L. Lauhead, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 7, 2020. No. S-19-687.

1. Mental Competency: Appeal and Error. The trial court’s determination of competency will not be disturbed unless there is insufficient 

evidence to support the finding.

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. Trial: Pleas: Mental Competency. A person is competent to plead or 

stand trial if he or she has the capacity to understand the nature and 

object of the proceedings against him or her, to comprehend his or her 

own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense.

4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. 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.

5. Sentences. When imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should consider 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.

Appeal from the District Court for Harlan County: Terri S. 

Harder, Judge. Affirmed.

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

for appellant.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

08/21/2020 12:07 AM CDT
- 702 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Jordan Osborne 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Freudenberg, J.

INTRODUCTION

Ronald L. Lauhead was charged with five counts of first 

degree sexual assault of a child and five counts of child abuse. 

Before trial, he requested a competency evaluation pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1823 (Reissue 2016). Lauhead 

was initially evaluated at the Lincoln Regional Center (the 

LRC) and found to be incompetent to stand trial. The district 

court ordered him to continue treatment at the LRC until his 

competency to stand trial could be restored. Lauhead was 

subsequently reevaluated by two doctors. Both doctors found 

Lauhead to be competent and recommended that he be provided accommodations. The district court found Lauhead competent to stand trial. Lauhead, subsequently, waived his right to 

a jury trial, and a bench trial based upon stipulated facts was 

held on the amended charges of one count of attempted first 

degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse. 

Lauhead was found guilty and sentenced to incarceration for 

terms of 20 to 22 years and 3 years, respectively, to be served 

concurrently. Lauhead appeals.

BACKGROUND

In November 2016, Lauhead was charged with five counts 

of first degree sexual assault of a child and five counts of 

child abuse. During the proceedings, Lauhead made a motion 

to have a competency evaluation, which the district court 

granted. Lauhead was evaluated in February 2017 by Mindy 

Abel, who has a doctor’s degree in clinical psychology and a 

law degree.

Abel’s evaluation details the three different tests administered and their results. To summarize, these tests showed that 
- 703 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

Lauhead has a mental impairment and that his IQ places him 

in the extremely low range of cognitive functioning. People 

in this range show impairment in their abilities for abstract 

thinking, executive functioning, short-term memory, and functional use of academic skills. Abel’s report specifically related 

the testing results to the criteria outlined in State v. Guatney.

 1

Abel’s evaluation opined that Lauhead was not competent to 

stand trial at that time.

In March 2017, a hearing on the issue of competency was 

held. Based on Abel’s report, the district court found that 

Lauhead was mentally incompetent to stand trial, but there was 

a substantial probability that he would become competent in 

the foreseeable future. The district court ordered that Lauhead 

be committed to the LRC for treatment until his competency 

could be restored.

Abel provided two subsequent reports to the district court. 

In October 2017, Abel reported that Lauhead was incompetent 

to be a witness against a codefendant in a related criminal matter. However, in December 2017, Abel reported that Lauhead 

could be competent to stand trial if certain accommodations 

were made. Abel described these accommodations as taking additional time and effort to explain the proceedings to 

Lauhead and to ensure that he understands what is going on. 

Abel opined that Lauhead had reached maximum benefit of the 

competency restoration services provided at the LRC and that 

Lauhead was now able to understand and assist in his defense 

if provided the recommended accommodations. Abel indicated 

that the burden to provide these accommodations would fall on 

Lauhead’s counsel.

A bifurcated hearing was held regarding Lauhead’s competence in January and May 2018. Abel’s report was provided 

to the district court during the January portion of the hearing. 

However, while the issue of competency was pending, the State 

moved for an additional competency evaluation. The district 

1 State v. Guatney, 207 Neb. 501, 299 N.W.2d 538 (1980).
- 704 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

court authorized the State’s requested competency evaluation 

by Theodore J. DeLaet, Ph.D. DeLaet conducted similar tests 

to those administered by Abel and reviewed files provided 

about Lauhead’s treatment at the LRC.

During the May 2018 portion of the bifurcated competency 

hearing, the court received DeLaet’s report over Lauhead’s 

objections that DeLaet’s examination and report were cumulative of Abel’s reports already admitted. Further, DeLaet testified that Lauhead met the minimum requirements to be considered competent to stand trial. He qualified his competency 

opinion by providing detailed recommendations for accommodations that would be essential for Lauhead to be able to understand the nature and extent of the charges and the proceedings 

against him. For example, during any questioning of Lauhead, 

it would be necessary to use simple language, provide him 

time to explain his responses, and cover one point at a time. 

In June, based upon the evidence presented during the competency hearing, the district court found Lauhead competent to 

stand trial.

Lauhead made a motion to request accommodations in 

preparation for trial. Lauhead also submitted a written brief 

requesting a consultant to help identify what accommodations 

would be needed at trial. The district court denied Lauhead’s 

request for a disability consultant to be appointed.

After several additional pretrial motions and hearings, 

Lauhead agreed to resolve this matter through a bench trial 

based upon a stipulated set of facts. In exchange for Lauhead’s 

procedural concession, the State dismissed several charges. The 

amended information contained one count of attempted first 

degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse. 

Based upon its review of the parties stipulated set of facts, the 

district court found Lauhead guilty of both counts.

At sentencing, Lauhead argued that being incarcerated with 

the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services would constitute cruel and unusual punishment given Lauhead’s inability 

to read and comprehend the rules of the corrections system. 
- 705 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

The district court considered the sentencing factors raised by 

Lauhead, including his disability, and sentenced him to incarceration for terms of 20 to 22 years and 3 years, respectively, 

to be served concurrently.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Lauhead argues, consolidated and renumbered, that the district court erred by (1) finding him competent to stand trial, 

(2) not identifying and providing accommodations to eliminate his incompetency, (3) ordering excessive sentences, and 

(4) sentencing him to the Nebraska Department of Correctional 

Services when the evidence showed he was incapable of 

properly managing or surviving the system managed by the 

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] The trial court’s determination of competency will not 

be disturbed unless there is insufficient evidence to support 

the finding. 2

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

within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the 

trial court. 3

ANALYSIS

Lauhead supports his assignments of error related to com

petency by focusing on the evaluators’ references to accommodations. The district court found that Lauhead was competent 

to stand trial without placing any express conditions on that 

determination. We find that there was sufficient evidence to 

support the district court’s finding of competency. We also 

find the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Lauhead within the statutory ranges for his convictions on 

both counts.

2 State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406, 923 N.W.2d 725 (2019).

3 State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228, 917 N.W.2d 895 (2018).
- 706 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

Competency

[3] A person is competent to plead or stand trial if he or 

she has the capacity to understand the nature and object of 

the proceedings against him or her, to comprehend his or her 

own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a 

rational defense. 4 As relevant to this case, § 29-1823(1) states 

in part that “[i]f at any time prior to trial it appears that the 

accused has become mentally incompetent to stand trial, such 

disability may be called to the attention of the district court 

by the county attorney, by the accused, or by any person for 

the accused.” Lauhead’s disability was called to the attention 

of the district court via a pretrial motion, and the district court 

ordered Lauhead to be evaluated.

The first evaluation was conducted by Abel. Abel’s report 

indicated that Lauhead was not competent to stand trial. Based 

upon Abel’s conclusion, the district court ordered Lauhead 

to receive treatment at the LRC. After several months at the 

LRC, Abel made a subsequent report to the district court that 

Lauhead was now competent to stand trial and recommended 

certain accommodations to ensure that Lauhead would understand what was going on at trial. The State requested a second 

evaluation that was conducted by DeLaet, who also concluded 

that Lauhead was competent to stand trial and recommended 

certain accommodations.

Abel and DeLaet used substantially similar tests and looked 

at the same patient history and information obtained from 

Lauhead’s counseling sessions while at the LRC. They both 

noted that although Lauhead scored in the extremely low cognitive range, he has a basic routine and was able to work jobs 

within the community. He was able to communicate socially, 

drive a vehicle, and maintain gainful employment. In his initial interview with police, Lauhead denied the accusations and 

indicated that he knew such actions were wrong.

These facts support the finding of the district court that 

Lauhead had the capacity to understand the nature and object 

4 State v. Garcia, supra note 2.
- 707 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense. 5 The district court considered the testimony and 

reports submitted by both experts and found Lauhead competent to stand trial. The district court’s order also stated that it 

would be mindful of the recommendations concerning the pace 

of the trial and the accommodations needed if Lauhead were 

to testify.

Lauhead argues that he was only conditionally competent 

and that the district court failed to identify and provide the 

proper accommodations. This, however, is a misinterpretation 

of the district court’s order. Although parts of the testimony of 

Abel and DeLaet could be interpreted as finding Lauhead conditionally competent, the district court order found Lauhead 

unconditionally competent. The district court presumably made 

such finding because Nebraska law has only one competency 

standard. 6 A defendant is either competent or incompetent—

a finding of conditionally competent is not permitted under 

Nebraska law.

In addition, many of the accommodations suggested by both 

experts were based on the scenario of a full adversarial trial in 

which Lauhead may choose to testify. Such accommodations 

were not required because Lauhead requested that the matter 

be resolved through a bench trial based upon a stipulated set 

of facts. The district court’s determination of competency will 

not be disturbed unless there is insufficient evidence to support 

the finding. 7 We find that the district court’s determination of 

competency is supported by sufficient evidence.

Sentencing

Lauhead’s remaining assignments of error assert that his 

sentences were excessive and that sentencing Lauhead to the 

5 See id.

6 See State v. Guatney, supra note 1.

7 State v. Garcia, supra note 2.
- 708 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

Nebraska Department of Correctional Services was a violation of his constitutional rights. We find that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lauhead within the 

statutory guidelines and that because Lauhead was properly 

found competent, his sentences do not violate his constitutional rights.

[4,5] Lauhead first contends that the sentences were excessive because the district court did not properly consider all of 

the factors, including Lauhead’s mentality. An appellate court 

will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits 

absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 8 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. 9

When imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should consider 

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. 10

The sentencing order indicates that the district court con

sidered the appropriate factors, including the evidence presented concerning Lauhead’s mental abilities. The district court 

found that Lauhead is not a suitable candidate for probation 

and that placing him on probation would promote a disrespect 

for the law. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that 

the district court considered improper factors when sentencing 

Lauhead, and he was sentenced within the sentencing ranges 

for the offenses of which he was convicted. 11 Accordingly, 

we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

8 State v. Leahy, supra note 3.

9 See State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 369, 859 N.W.2d 877 (2015).

10 State v. Bauldwin, 283 Neb. 678, 811 N.W.2d 267 (2012).

11 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-105 and 28-201 (Reissue 2016).
- 709 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. LAUHEAD

Cite as 306 Neb. 701

sentencing Lauhead to incarceration for terms of 20 to 22 

years and 3 years to be served concurrently.

Lauhead next asserts he was sentenced to incarceration in 

violation of his constitutional rights because he was incompetent to stand trial. Because we find the district court did not err 

in determining that Lauhead was competent to stand trial, this 

argument is without merit.

CONCLUSION

The reports and testimony of the two doctors who evaluated Lauhead provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that Lauhead was competent to stand trial. His sentences 

were within the statutory sentencing range, and Lauhead failed 

to show that the district court considered improper factors 

or abused its discretion. The judgment of the district court 

is affirmed.

Affirmed.