Case Name: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Decabooter Williams, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1972-01-21
Citations: 187 Neb. 708
Docket Number: No. 38114
Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Decabooter Williams, appellant.
Judges: Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, Newton, and Clinton, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 187
Pages: 708–710

Head Matter:
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Decabooter Williams, appellant.
193 N. W. 2d 570
Filed January 21, 1972.
No. 38114.
Thomas P. Lott, for appellant.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Harold Mosher, for appellee.
Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, Newton, and Clinton, JJ.

Opinion:
Clinton, J.
The defendant was charged with robbery under the provisions of section 28-414, R. R. S. 1943, found guilty by a jury, and sentenced to serve a term of not less than 3 years nor more than 10 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. He appeals. The sole assignment of error is that the sentence is excessive. The claim is. founded upon the premise that the crime of which the defendant was found guilty was a first offense and that he is only 19 years of age.
The record discloses the defendant and a companion accomplished the robbery of a grocery store and its proprietor by an assault upon the person of the proprietor with a pair of scissors but without inflicting serious personal injury. Defendant was the active perpetrator of the assault which consisted of an .attack from the rear, grabbing around the neck with the arm, choking, thrusting a pair of scissors against the back, and later striking several times. After being released the victim secured a revolver from a place of hiding and cocked it, and went toward the defendant, who' then, according to the victim, rushed at him with the sc'ssors. as if to stab him. The victim then shot the defendant, inflicting a minor wound.
We have often said: A sentence within the limits prescribed by statute will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Jurgens, ante p. 557, 192 N. W. 2d 741. We cannot say the record establishes an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.