Gerald R. Tlamka, pro se. Don Stenberg, Attorney General, J. Kirk Brown, and, on brief, Jay C. Hinsley. A defendant requesting postconviction relief must establish the basis for such relief, and the factual findings of the district court will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Where a defendant is unable to demonstrate sufficient prejudice, no examination of whether counsel's performance was deficient is necessary. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the conclusion reached by the courts below.
Penal statutes are to be strictly construed.
It is not for the courts to supply missing words or sentences to make clear that which is indefinite or to supply that which is not there when interpreting a statute. On appeal, Tlamka challenges the enhancement of his sentence based on prior convictions and the effectiveness of his trial and appellate counsel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On October 27, an enhancement hearing was held on the motor vehicle homicide conviction to determine whether the charge was punishable as a Class III felony or a Class IV felony. Subsequently, the district court found that Tlamka's prior DUI convictions could be used to enhance his present motor vehicle' homicide conviction to a Class III felony.