Opinion ID: 1712198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: constitutional validity of pleas

Text: Schneider concedes that the court advised him of his constitutional rights and asked him a series of questions to confirm his understanding and waiver of those rights. But he contends that because the court failed to advise him that he would be required to register as a sex offender, the court erred in accepting his pleas because they were not made intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly. The State contends that the court's colloquy satisfied all of the criteria for determining that a plea is constitutionally valid. Nebraska has adopted the U.S. Supreme Court's due process requirements for a validly entered guilty plea delineated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). See State v. Tweedy, 209 Neb. 649, 309 N.W.2d 94 (1981). Under Boykin, a guilty plea must be knowingly and voluntarily entered because the plea involves the waiver of certain constitutional rights. See, also, State v. Silvers, 255 Neb. 702, 714, 587 N.W.2d 325, 334 (1998) (`[g]uilty pleas are grave and solemn acts which waive certain constitutional rights, and they therefore must be ... knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences'). We have held that to support a finding that a plea of guilty has been entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, a court must inform a defendant concerning (1) the nature of the charge, (2) the right to assistance of counsel, (3) the right to confront witnesses against the defendant, (4) the right to a jury trial, and (5) the privilege against self-incrimination. The record must also establish a factual basis for the plea and that the defendant knew the range of penalties for the crime charged. State v. Burkhardt, 258 Neb. 1050, 607 N.W.2d 512 (2000). Schneider asks this court to analyze the penal nature of the registration requirement under the Act using the intent-effects factors first set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963). We decline to do so. Those factors set out the analytical framework for analyzing punishment under a double jeopardy or ex post facto challenge, neither of which is a part of this appeal. See, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 (1997) (applying intent-effects analysis to both double jeopardy and ex post facto challenges); State v. Howell, 254 Neb. 247, 575 N.W.2d 861 (1998) (explaining history and application of intent-effects analysis for double jeopardy purposes). We discussed the Act in State v. Torres, 254 Neb. 91, 574 N.W.2d 153 (1998). In that case, the defendant pled no contest to third degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 1 year of probation. On appeal, he argued that the Act was a violation of the U.S. and State of Nebraska Ex Post Facto Clauses because it potentially increased his punishment for failing to register under the Act. This court held that the Act's registration requirements are separate and collateral to any sexual offense which the act affects [and] come into play only after a conviction is secured. 254 Neb. at 94, 574 N.W.2d at 155. Under Torres, the registration requirement is collateral to a defendant's sentence on the underlying conviction. We have not previously determined whether a trial court's failure to advise a defendant of a collateral consequence of his or her plea of guilty or no contest renders the plea constitutionally invalid. Federal courts and many state courts have adopted a direct-collateral analysis for determining which consequences of a guilty plea a court must advise a defendant of before accepting his or her guilty plea. See 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 404 (1989); 5 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 21.4(d) (2d ed.1999). Under Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), a plea of guilty must stand if entered by a defendant fully aware of the direct consequences of the plea. Direct consequences are those which result in a `definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.' U.S. v. Amador-Leal, 276 F.3d 511, 514 (9th Cir.2002). Trial courts are free to advise defendants of the collateral consequences of their plea, but are obligated only to advise them of the direct consequences, and the failure to inform a defendant of a collateral consequence does not render the plea involuntary or unintelligent. See State v. Bollig, 232 Wis.2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199 (2000). We have never adopted this direct-collateral terminology, although we have held that a court is not required to advise a defendant of the possibility of consecutive sentences, probation restrictions, or the possibility of a conviction's being used in a future proceeding to terminate parental rights. See, State v. Spiegel, 239 Neb. 233, 474 N.W.2d 873 (1991) (probation restrictions); State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986) (consecutive sentences); In re Interest of Theodore W., 4 Neb.App. 428, 545 N.W.2d 119 (1996) (subsequent termination of parental rights). Conversely, we have held that a court must inform a defendant of the possibility of an increased sentence imposed because of a habitual criminal statute. We have also held that a court must inform a defendant of a mandatory minimum sentence even if the incarceration is mandatory under a probation provision. See, State v. Van Ackeren, 234 Neb. 535, 451 N.W.2d 707 (1990) (habitual criminal enhancement of sentence); State v. Stastny, 223 Neb. 903, 395 N.W.2d 492 (1986) (mandatory minimum incarceration period under probation provision). Similarly, we have held that trial courts must also advise a defendant if restitution to a victim is a possible consequence of a plea because this type of restitution is a criminal penalty. State v. War Bonnett, 229 Neb. 681, 428 N.W.2d 508 (1988). In general, under Nebraska law, a defendant must be informed of those consequences which affect the range of possible sentences or periods of incarceration for each charge and the amount of any fine to be imposed as a part of a sentence. Other jurisdictions have determined that the duty to register under the Act is a collateral consequence of a plea of guilty or no contest and that the court's failure to advise a defendant of this requirement does not invalidate the plea. See, e.g., State v. Young, 112 Ariz. 361, 542 P.2d 20 (1975); People v. Montaine, 7 P.3d 1065 (Colo.App.1999); Nelson v. State, 780 So.2d 294 (Fla.App.2001); State v. Timperley, 599 N.W.2d 866 (S.D.1999). We conclude that the district court was not required to inform Schneider of the collateral consequence of the duties imposed under the Act before accepting his pleas of no contest and that his pleas were not rendered involuntary or unintelligent because he was not aware of this requirement.