Case Name: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin Dean Randall, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1981-03-06
Citations: 208 Neb. 248
Docket Number: No. 43532
Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin Dean Randall, appellant.
Judges: Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, White, and Hastings, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 208
Pages: 248–250

Head Matter:
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin Dean Randall, appellant.
302 N.W.2d 733
Filed March 6, 1981.
No. 43532.
Willis G. Yoesel for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and John Boehm for appellee.
Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, White, and Hastings, JJ.

Opinion:
Krivosha, C.J.
The appellant, Kevin Dean Randall, was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. Following plea-bargaining negotiations, the State of Nebraska filed an amended information charging Randall with murder in the second degree, to which he entered a plea of guilty. After receiving a presentence investigation and evaluation, the court sentenced Randall to a term of imprisonment in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex for a period of not less than 30 years nor more than his natural life. It is from this sentence which appellant has appealed, maintaining that the trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence of not less than 30 years nor more than life imprisonment, and for the further reason that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence allegedly in excess of the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of our decision in the case of State v. Laravie, 192 Neb. 625, 223 N.W.2d 435 (1974), we need only consider Randall's first assignment of error. In Laravie, supra at 628, 223 N.W.2d at 437, we held that: "Under present statutes, upon conviction for second degree murder, the court is not authorized to pronounce an indeterminate sentence. The court may impose a sentence of a definite term of years, not less than the minimum authorized by law; or, in the alternative, may impose a sentence of life imprisonment." The record clearly reflects that the sentence in this case is in conflict with our holding in Laravie. Accordingly, we must therefore reverse the instant matter and remand the case back to the District Court with instructions to impose a sentence in accordance with the standards set out in State v. Laravie, supra.
Having thus disposed of the matter on this basis, we need not now consider Randall's second assignment of error.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
White, J., concurs in result.