Title: State v. Temple
Citation: 230 Neb. 624, 432 N.W.2d 818
Docket Number: 078
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: December 16, 1988

432 N.W.2d 818 (1988) 230 Neb. 624 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Robert TEMPLE, Appellant. No. 88-078. Supreme Court of Nebraska. December 16, 1988. *819 Clay B. Statmore, Lincoln, for appellant. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Lisa D. Martin-Price, Lincoln, for appellee. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN and GRANT, JJ. BOSLAUGH, Justice. Upon a plea of guilty to third degree assault, the defendant, Robert Temple, was fined $500 and costs and sentenced to 90 days in the county jail. Upon appeal to the district court, the judgment was affirmed. The defendant has now appealed to this court. His assignment of error relates to the proceedings at the arraignment in the county court on August 20, 1987. The bill of exceptions of that proceeding shows the following took place: THE COURT: Is that correct, John? MR. COLBORN: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: May we have the report on Count 1? THE COURT: Anything else? THE COURT: 18th of September okay? MR. STATMORE: 10th of September? THE COURT: 18th. MR. STATMORE: 18th of September. That'll be fine. MR. COLBORN: That'd be fine, Your Honor. The victim has indicated to me *820 that she feels the defendant needs counseling treatment. I pass that on to the Court. The "case action summary" for that date, apparently a record of notes made by the judge of the county court as to what took place during the proceeding, and which appears on page 5 of the supplemental transcript, shows the following: The defendant contends that the notation on the case action summary was the imposition of a sentence and that the county court was without jurisdiction to impose a different and more severe sentence upon the defendant. The defendant relies upon the rule that a sentence validly imposed takes effect from the time that it is imposed and that a subsequent and different sentence is a nullity. State v. Christiansen, 217 Neb. 740, 351 N.W.2d 67 (1984). The difficulty with the defendant's contention is that the record in this case shows that no sentence was imposed on the defendant at the hearing on August 20, 1987. After the sentencing hearing on September 18, 1987, the defendant appealed to the district court. On October 19, 1987, the district court remanded the case to the county court for a further hearing "to determine if crossed out sentence on page 5 of the transcript was in fact given." The further hearing was held in the county court on December 18, 1987. The bill of exceptions for that hearing contains the following statements on the record by Judge Dusenberry explaining what happened in regard to the notation made on the case action summary on August 20, 1987: .... ... On page 5, there is an entry by me on the 20th of August, "Count 2 dismissed by the County Attorney" and it's dated and stampedor put a stamp on there which is a straight sentence, and the defendant asked forthrough his attorney *821 asked for a presentence investigation and I crossed it off, but didn't put in there, "in error".... .... The notation on the case action summary for December 18, 1987, contains the following: "Stamp on 20 Aug 87 was entered in error. Defendant pled guilty, at which time stamp was placed on file after all evidence was presented. Defendants attorney asked for pre Sentence investigation, at which time court crossed off straight sentence stamp and used the presentence stamp." The pronouncement of the sentence in open court in the presence of the defendant is an important part of the sentencing procedure in most criminal cases. In imposing sentence, the court should state with care the precise terms of the sentence which is imposed. It has long been the rule in this state that rendition of a judgment includes the announcement by the court of the judgment. See, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 25-1301(2) (Reissue 1985); Ricketts v. Continental Nat. Bank, 169 Neb. 809, 101 N.W.2d 153 (1960); State ex rel. Kaipus v. Board of Trustees of S. &amp; I. Dist. No. 113, 200 Neb. 525, 264 N.W.2d 422 (1978). Although, ordinarily, the record of a lower court imparts absolute verity, where there is a conflict between the record of a judgment and the verbatim record of the proceedings in open court, the latter prevails. In State v. Painter, 223 Neb. 808, 811, 394 N.W.2d 292, 295 (1986), we said: See, also, Kehl v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 126 Neb. 695, 254 N.W. 397 (1934). It is clear from the record in this case that Judge Dusenberry started to make a written record on August 20, 1987, of something that never happened. No sentence was ever imposed on the defendant on that date. The notation to the contrary was in error and should have been corrected, which was what Judge Dusenberry did. The judgment of the district court is correct, and it is affirmed. AFFIRMED. FAHRNBRUCH, J., not participating.