- 575 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. KEENAN

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 575

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Kristie J. Keenan, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 30, 2020. No. A-19-806.

1. 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.

2. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when 

the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly 

depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters submitted for disposition.

3. Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. 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.

4. Courts: Appeal and Error. Both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from the county court for error 

appearing on the record.

5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. 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.

6. Sentences. When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to 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. The sentencing court is not 

limited to any mathematically applied set of factors.

7. ____. 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.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

07/07/2020 12:08 AM CDT
- 576 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. KEENAN

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 575

Appeal from the District Court for Cheyenne County, Derek 

C. Weimer, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court 

for Cheyenne County, Randin R. Roland, Judge. Judgment of 

District Court affirmed.

Stacy C. Bach, of Nossaman Petitt Law Firm, P.C., for 

appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss 

for appellee.

Pirtle, Riedmann, and Welch, Judges.

Pirtle, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Based on a plea agreement, Kristie J. Keenan pled no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor and was sentenced by the Cheyenne County Court to 6 months in jail. The 

district court affirmed her sentence. On appeal, Keenan argues 

that the county court’s sentence was excessive. Based on the 

reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s order, affirming the county court’s sentence.

BACKGROUND

Keenan was charged in county court with two offenses: contributing to the delinquency of a minor and procuring/selling 

alcohol to a minor, both Class I misdemeanors. Pursuant to 

a plea agreement, Keenan pled no contest to the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge and the other charge 

was dismissed. The county court sentenced her to 6 months 

in jail.

Keenan appealed to the district court, arguing that the county 

court abused its discretion in sentencing her to 6 months in 

jail. The district court affirmed the county court’s judgment, 

finding that the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits and was not an abuse of discretion.
- 577 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. KEENAN

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 575

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Keenan assigns that “[t]he sentence imposed upon [her], 

although within the statutory limits, is nevertheless excessive 

and constituted an abuse of discretion by the Trial Court.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1,2] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed 

within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the 

trial court. State v. Manjikian, 303 Neb. 100, 927 N.W.2d 48 

(2019). A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons 

or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in 

matters submitted for disposition. Id.

[3-5] 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. Becker, 304 Neb. 693, 936 

N.W.2d 505 (2019). 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.

ANALYSIS

Keenan assigns that her sentence was excessive and an 

abuse of discretion. Relying on State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. 

224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019), modified on denial of rehearing

303 Neb. 931, 932 N.W.2d 83, the State asserts that Keenan’s 

assigned error—that the trial court, i.e., the county court, 

abused its discretion—is not reviewable. Its position is based 

on the Supreme Court’s statement that “[u]nder Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 25-2733(3) (Reissue 2016), the judgment of the district court vacates the judgment in the county court and thus 

only the district court’s judgment is reviewable by this court.” 
- 578 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. KEENAN

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 575

State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. at 231, 928 N.W.2d at 396. We 

disagree that review of Keenan’s assigned error is precluded 

under this principle.

In McGinn, the county court found breath test results 

admissible and convicted the defendant of driving under the 

influence, second offense. On appeal to the district court, 

that court found that the breath test results were inadmissible. 

However, it affirmed the conviction, finding there was other 

evidence to support the conviction. The defendant appealed 

the district court’s order, assigning that “the district court 

erred in sustaining the county court’s conviction after determining the breath test evidence was inadmissible.” Id. at 230, 

928 N.W.2d at 395. The State argued the breath test results 

were admissible but did not cross-appeal the district court’s 

decision to the contrary. It claimed it did not need to crossappeal the district court’s admissibility decision because the 

district court ultimately affirmed the conviction on other 

grounds. Relying on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733(3) (Reissue 

2016), our Supreme Court rejected that argument, stating that 

the district court’s order vacated the county court’s order and 

that therefore, only the district court’s order was reviewable 

by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the 

State had not preserved the alleged error committed by the 

district court.

In McGinn, the only assigned error was that the district court 

erred in affirming the defendant’s conviction absent admissible breath test evidence. Because there was no cross-appeal, 

the State was precluded from attacking the district court’s 

finding as to the admissibility of the breath test and could not 

rely upon the county court’s finding in that regard because the 

district court’s order vacated that order. In the present case, 

Keenan’s assigned error is that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence. Both the district court 

and the Nebraska appellate courts generally review appeals 

from the county court for error appearing on the record. State 

v. Dittoe, 269 Neb. 317, 693 N.W.2d 261 (2005). So in an 
- 579 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. KEENAN

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 575

appeal in which the district court affirmed the sentence 

imposed by the county court, we are reviewing the sentence to 

determine if it was excessive. Here, Keenan assigns what we 

must ultimately review: Did the county court abuse its discretion in sentencing Keenan? While the error may have been 

more accurately presented as whether the district court erred in 

failing to find that the county court abused its discretion and 

imposed an excessive sentence, the assigned error as stated 

adequately preserves the appellant’s claim.

Keenan argues that the county court’s sentence was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion because the court 

failed to take certain factors into account and considered other 

irrelevant information. She claims that the court focused on 

events that occurred that were unrelated to the crime for which 

she was being sentenced.

Keenan was convicted of one count of contributing to the 

delinquency of a minor, a Class I misdemeanor, which is subject to a maximum sentence of 1 year’s imprisonment, a $1,000 

fine, or both. There is no minimum sentence. See Neb. Rev. 

Stat. §§ 28-709 and 28-106 (Reissue 2016). The county court 

sentenced Keenan to 6 months in jail. Accordingly, Keenan’s 

sentence is within the statutory limits and will not be disturbed 

unless the county court abused its discretion. See State v. 

Manjikian, 303 Neb. 100, 927 N.W.2d 48 (2019).

[6,7] When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to 

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. Id. However, the sentencing court is not limited to 

any mathematically applied set of factors. Id. 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.
- 580 -

Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets

28 Nebraska Appellate Reports

STATE v. KEENAN

Cite as 28 Neb. App. 575

Here, the record establishes that the county court reviewed 

the presentence investigation report and considered all appropriate sentencing factors. At the sentencing hearing, the court 

discussed Keenan’s lengthy criminal history, noting that she 

had received supervised probation twice, and one of those 

times her probation was revoked. It also noted that she was 

incarcerated on another occasion for a felony. The court then 

discussed events that happened on the night Keenan committed the offense at issue and injuries suffered by the victim. 

The court also discussed the grounds to be accorded weight in 

favor of withholding a sentence of imprisonment as set out in 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260(3) (Reissue 2016). Before announcing its sentence, the court stated that it had taken into account 

the factors under § 29-2260(3), as well as Keenan’s criminal 

history, her educational background, her family background, 

the serious harm caused to the victim in this case, her lack of 

remorse, and the facts surrounding the offense.

Based upon the record, the county court considered the 

appropriate factors. Therefore, the district court did not err in 

concluding that the county court did not abuse its discretion in 

sentencing Keenan.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that because the county court did not impose 

an excessive sentence, the district court did not err when it 

affirmed Keenan’s county court sentence. The judgment of the 

district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.