Case Name: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Peter W. Schmidt, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1977-10-12
Citations: 199 Neb. 282
Docket Number: No. 41272
Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Peter W. Schmidt, appellant.
Judges: Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, and White, JJ.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 199
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Peter W. Schmidt, appellant.
258 N. W. 2d 140
Filed October 12, 1977.
No. 41272.
William Francis of Cunningham, Blackburn, Von-Seggern & Livingston, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and J. Kirk Brown, for appellee.
Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, and White, JJ.

Opinion:
White, C. Thomas, J.
The 29-year-old defendant admits breaking and entering a Grand Island doctor's office in the nighttime. He pled guilty to a burglary charge and was sentenced to 2 to 6 years at hard labor in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. The sentence included credit for jailtime the defendant served prior to sentencing.
Defendant has a history of criminal charges beginning in 1967 with a burglary charge in Chicago. The defendant was placed on probation. In 1968, defendant was sentenced to serve a 2-year term in the Texas Department of Corrections for forgery and burglary. He was released after serving 14 months.
The defendant was employed with a moving company in Grand Island at the time of his arrest. The record and presentence report indicate defendant has a drinking problem. Defense counsel argues that defendant had not been involved in any felony-related activities for almost 10 years and urged probation.
For the crime of burglary, section 28-532, R. R. S. 1943, provides a sentence of imprisonment in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex of not more than 10 years nor less than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 6 months. The sentence given was within the statutory limits.
The sentence was not excessive in light of defendant's record. The defendant had received probation on a previous burglary charge which he violated by a burglary conviction resulting in confinement.
The judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed.
Affirmed.