- 1 -

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

(Memorandum Web Opinion)

STATE V. KING

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,

V.

DEVONTE M. KING, APPELLANT.

Filed March 28, 2023. No. A-22-567.

Appeal from the District Court for Lincoln County: PATRICK M. HENG, Judge. Affirmed.

Devonte M. King, pro se.

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

RIEDMANN, BISHOP, and ARTERBURN, Judges.

BISHOP, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Devonte M. King appeals from the order of the Lincoln County District Court affirming 

his convictions and sentences in the county court, which arose from King driving without a driver’s 

license, proof of insurance, or proper license plates. King contends his constitutional rights were 

violated as a result of his convictions. He claims he is not subject to Nebraska statutes regarding 

the operation of a motor vehicle on public highways and further argues that the statutes under 

which he was convicted are unconstitutional. We recently decided a case involving King’s similar 

convictions in Hamilton County, Nebraska, and many of the arguments he made on appeal in that 

case, he makes again here. See State v. King, No. A-21-872, 2022 WL 3036180 (Neb. App. Aug. 

2, 2022) (selected for posting to court website). As we did previously, we affirm King’s 

convictions and sentences.
- 2 -

BACKGROUND

An amended complaint was filed on November 2, 2021, in the county court for Lincoln 

County charging King with “No Proof of Insurance” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-3,167 

(Reissue 2021), a Class II misdemeanor; “No Operator’s License” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 60-484 (Reissue 2021), a Class III misdemeanor; and “Unlawful or Fictitious Plates” pursuant 

to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-399(1) (Reissue 2021), a Class III misdemeanor. All charges related to 

King’s operation of a motor vehicle upon a street, alley, or public roadway or highway in Lincoln 

County, Nebraska, on or about November 1, 2021.

A bench trial took place on March 24, 2022, at which time the county court also took up a 

motion to dismiss filed by King. King appeared pro se, choosing not to have an attorney; however, 

stand-by counsel was available to him. After considering King’s written arguments and those made 

by the State, the court overruled King’s motion and the case proceeded to trial. Officer Alexander 

Parker from the North Platte Police Department testified that on November 1, 2021, at 

approximately 8:20 p.m., he saw a vehicle make an improper turn and then he also noticed a sign 

or placard that said “Private Property” where the vehicle’s license plate should have been. After 

initiating a traffic stop, Officer Parker asked King for his name and license, to which King 

responded that he was not going to give him any documents. King was arrested for “obstruction.”

Once placed in handcuffs, King started getting “mouthy,” “acting very confrontational, . . . 

verbally confrontational.” Once at the detention center, King’s identity was determined by “people 

at the jail” and with jail records. According to “NCJIS records,” there was no active insurance on 

King’s vehicle and King did not have an active driver’s license. Officer Parker also confirmed that 

there were “placards on the vehicle in place of a state-issued license plate.”

King informed the county court that he had “no evidence,” he did “nothing wrong,” and 

“[t]here’s nothing to prove.” King further indicated that “[e]verything is in writing.” “But, about 

the fake license plate, . . . it’s just a sticker . . . [and] that’s freedom of speech.” The court proceeded 

to find King guilty of all three charges and sentenced King to pay fines of $200 (no proof of 

insurance), $75 (no operator’s license), and $50 (fictitious plates), and he was given 60 days to 

pay. A written order consistent with the court’s orally pronounced findings and sentences was 

entered the same day.

On April 7, 2022, King appealed to the district court. In his statement of errors filed on 

April 19, he claimed that the “state of Nebraska and its employees are infringing on [his] liberty 

and religious beliefs to be free. They are doing so by way of imprisonment and fines for not being 

a participant and contracting with the state’s motor vehicle program.” He asserted that “[a]ll of the 

statutes infringe and deny [him his] right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as [his] 

right to own and acquire private property”; that his “Right to liberty and religion of freedom 

supersedes the State and its employees’ powers to imprison and force license taxes on [him] and 

[his] private property via drivers [sic] license and license plate registration”; and “Everything the 

people own does not have to be commercialized and taxed by the government.” He asserted that 

he did “nothing wrong,” that “[a]ll taxes are voluntary,” and that “Nebraska and its employees are 

going beyond the Federal and State constitutional limitations, by forcing people to be tax slaves.”

He claimed he did not reside in any state, was not a resident or inhabitant, and was “a free and 

independent man” whose liberty was “protected and guaranteed by various constitutions.” He 
- 3 -

claimed that he did not “consent to participation in the DMV program,” and that “[i]mprisoning 

[him] for not paying the state and DMV taxes is slavery.” King included citations to the U.S. Code 

(definition of “motor vehicle” and “used for commercial purposes”), the U.S. Constitution, U.S. 

Supreme Court cases, and the Nebraska Constitution.

A hearing was held before the district court on July 11, 2022. King appeared pro se (with 

stand-by counsel); he presented no evidence and made no arguments to the court. He informed the 

court that he had filed “paperwork” for the court to review.

The State argued that there was sufficient evidence presented for all three of King’s 

convictions. The State noted that King’s statement of errors is “a mixed bag of Federal Code as 

well as [s]tate statutes, constitution” and that “[t]his is a prosecution under the law of the State of 

Nebraska, not under federal [law] that the US Code would apply to.” The State then addressed 

King’s argument that state statutes regulating the use of a motor vehicle are unconstitutional, 

stating that such statutes fall under “a public need exception” and are necessary to ensure “that the 

vehicles are safe, that the operator of that vehicle is properly trained,” and “in the event that the 

operator of that vehicle is involved in an accident, whether negligently or not, that the automobile 

is properly insured to cover any costs of any negligence from the operator.” The district court took 

take the matter under advisement.

On July 25, 2022, the district court entered an order affirming the convictions and sentences 

of the county court. The district court took judicial notice of the county court transcript, King’s 

statement of errors, King’s affidavits, the county court bill of exceptions, and two documents filed 

by King on July 11: a “Revocable Trust Declaration” and a “Certification of Voluntary Surrender 

of License” (signed by King on July 27, 2021). It found that it was “clear that the State proved 

each of the Counts 1, 2 and 3 beyond a reasonable doubt” and noted that, although King appeared 

pro se at trial, he had “stand-by counsel during the proceedings.” It acknowledged that King’s 

position at trial and on appeal was that “the State or Department of Motor Vehicles have no 

jurisdiction over him as a private citizen owning a private automobile”; that “the statutes relied 

upon by the State in this matter deprive [King] of his ‘life, liberty or property without due process 

of law’”; and that “the State cannot require him to obtain a [driver’s] license or to register his 

automobile.”

The district court found “that the record does not show that there was an abuse of discretion 

on the part of the county court,” and that “the county court’s decision conforms with the law, is 

supported by competent evidence and is neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable, and the 

fines imposed were within the statutory limits.” The district court affirmed the judgment of the 

county court and stated that King’s “appeal is denied.”

King now appeals the district court’s decision.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

King, pro se, raises allegations that his constitutional rights were violated and that the 

Nebraska statutes regulating the use of motor vehicles do not apply to him and are unconstitutional. 

We note that King’s brief does not comply with appellate court rules in that it does not include a 

separate assignments of error section as mandated by Neb. Ct. R. § 2-109(D) (rev. 2022). His brief 

primarily consists of numbered citations to various United States Supreme Court cases, the U.S. 

Constitution, and the Nebraska Constitution. While his brief contains a separate “Argument”
- 4 -

section, King intersperses throughout his brief various arguments and assertions that his 

constitutional rights were violated. Depending on the particulars of each case, failure to comply 

with the mandates of § 2-109(D) may result in an appellate court waiving the error, proceeding on 

a plain error review, or declining to conduct any review at all. Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit 

Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916, 958 N.W.2d 378 (2021), disapproved on other grounds, Clark v. 

Sargent Irr. Dist., 311 Neb. 123, 971 N.W.2d 298 (2022). In following the rules promulgated by 

the Nebraska Supreme Court, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as a litigant represented 

by counsel. See Friedman v. Friedman, 290 Neb. 973, 863 N.W.2d 153 (2015). Due to King’s 

failure to comply with the formatting requirements for an appellate brief, we proceed to review the 

record for plain error. Our references to specific pages of King’s brief are based on the page 

number that would be associated with the page had the brief’s pages been properly numbered, 

which they were not.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an 

intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error or 

abuse of discretion. State v. Collins, 307 Neb. 581, 950 N.W.2d 89 (2020). Both the district court 

and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error appearing on 

the record. Id. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate court’s 

inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is 

neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id. When deciding appeals from criminal 

convictions in county court, we apply the same standards of review that we apply to decide appeals 

from criminal convictions in district court. Id.

Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it 

uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. 

State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022).

ANALYSIS

King’s previous convictions in Hamilton County are nearly identical to those in the present 

case, and King raised similar arguments on appeal in that case as he does again here. See State v. 

King, No. A-21-872, 2022 WL 3036180 (Neb. App. Aug. 2, 2022) (selected for posting to court 

website). In his previous appeal, King was convicted of driving without a driver’s license, vehicle 

registration, or proof of insurance, and he argued on appeal that “Nebraska law regulating the 

operation of a motor vehicle on its public highways is not applicable to him, as he was not ‘engaged 

in commercial activity.’” Id. at *3. He claimed that “the state cannot ‘constitutionally deny [his] 

right to use the interstate-highway unless there is iron clad proof [he] was engaged in commercial 

activity’ and that the state may not ‘impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the 

federal constitution.’” Id. He also argued that he was “deprived of his ‘Right to enjoyment of Life 

and Liberty.’” Id.

Here, King argues that “[N]ebraska continues to deprive [him] of life[,] liberty[,] and 

property under the guise of commercial activity and the false legal presumption that [he is] a 

resident or US citizen.” Brief for appellant at 3. He claims that he was “imprisoned for over 100 

days, and had [his] property stolen, all under the guise of commercial activity . . . and [he was a] 
- 5 -

US citizen under voluntary servitude.” Id. at 7. He states that he is “not a driver” and he “do[es] 

not operate or drive a motor vehicle in a commercial capacity.” Id. He further claims he has “the 

right and liberty to acquire private property and use it as [he] choose[s], including moving from 

point A to point B” and that “[i]t is unconstitutional to deprive [him] of the right to do so.” Id.

Like he did in his previous appeal, he argues that the State “may not impose a charge for 

the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” Brief for appellant at 4. He claims 

that “[a]ll statutes are repugnant to the U.S. Constitution,” the state “shall not deny, infringe or 

punish [him] for the enjoyment of inherent and inalienable liberty rights,” and the State may not 

“turn rights into a privilege and force license, tax, and DMV contracts.” Id. at 2.

As we found in King’s previous appeal, these arguments are without merit. The United 

States Supreme Court has upheld state statutory schemes requiring individuals to obtain licenses 

and register their vehicles before legally being able to use their vehicles on state highways. See 

Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S. Ct. 140, 59 L. Ed. 385 (1915) (in absence of national 

legislation, state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order 

in respect to operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles--those moving in interstate 

commerce as well as others; such regulations may include requiring registration of such vehicles 

and licensing of their drivers). The Nebraska Supreme Court has similarly upheld the applicability 

of licensing and registration requirements pursuant to Nebraska statutes. See, e.g., State v. Meints, 

223 Neb. 199, 388 N.W.2d 813 (1986) (contention that driving of motor vehicle is activity which 

is not subject to regulation by requiring that driver be licensed is without merit); Peterson v. 

Department of Public Works, 120 Neb. 517, 234 N.W. 95 (1931) (state may exact compensation 

in form of licensing and registration fees for use of public highways by motor vehicle).

To the extent King claims that Nebraska’s statutory scheme imposes an impermissible 

charge on the exercise of his constitutional rights, the Nebraska Supreme Court has observed that 

such statutes do not “directly interfere[] with the rights of citizens of the United States to pass 

through the state.” Peterson v. Department of Public Works, 120 Neb. at 522, 234 N.W. at 97. 

Rather, the statutes “attempt[] to regulate the operation of dangerous machines [in the form of 

motor vehicles] on the highways, and to charge for the use of valuable facilities.” Id. It thus follows 

that Nebraska’s licensing and registration requirements do not charge King to exercise his 

constitutional right to interstate travel; rather, the statutes charge King for the operation of a motor 

vehicle on public highways. See id. In light of this precedent, King’s argument that he is not subject 

to Nebraska’s licensing and registration requirements fails.

King does not dispute that he was operating a motor vehicle without a driver’s license, 

proof of insurance, or proper license plates. We find no plain error in the district court’s decision 

to affirm King’s convictions and sentences.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the order of the district court affirming King’s 

convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.