Opinion ID: 1819366
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: claim of excessive sentence

Text: As his final assignment of error, Hoffman contends that his sentences are excessive, especially since the court imposed consecutive sentences. [I]n the absence of an abuse of discretion, a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Dillon, 222 Neb. 131, 136, 382 N.W.2d 353, 357 (1986). `It is within the discretion of the trial court to direct that sentences imposed for separate crimes be served consecutively, as opposed to concurrently.' State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 817, 394 N.W.2d 879, 881 (1986). Hoffman asserts that he has no prior criminal record. Brief for Appellant at 22. The presentence report on Hoffman contains five pages of his undenied and deplorable history of convictions. Rather than a misrepresentation that Hoffman does not have a criminal history, we will view Hoffman's assertion of no prior criminal record as a partially correct statement that Hoffman has no record of a previous felony conviction. At the time of sentencing, Hoffman was an unmarried 29-year-old home-maintenance repairman. Hoffman has been twice convicted of petit larceny and has had one conviction for public intoxication. Additionally, Hoffman was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident (1983) and theft (1984). Hoffman has five convictions for driving under a suspended operator's license or the amended charge of driving with no operator's license, resulting in jail sentences imposed on two of those convictions. Even more conspicuously, Hoffman has been convicted for drunk driving in the years designated and with his bodily blood-alcohol content as indicated: 1975, .13 percent; 1979, .28 percent; 1981, .17 percent; and 1984, .129 percent. Hoffman's record of convictions and Lana Wagner's death as mute testimony were undoubtedly considered by the district court in determining and weighing the sentences to be imposed. We find no abuse of discretion, either in the separate sentences imposed on Hoffman for his convictions of second degree assault (count I) and motor vehicle homicide (count II) or in the imposition of consecutive sentences for the convictions on those counts. Because there is no error in Hoffman's convictions and sentences on count I and count II, the judgment of the district court regarding each of those counts is affirmed. For the reason previously given, the district court's judgment of conviction and sentence on count III is reversed, and, concerning count III only, this matter is remanded to the district court with direction to dismiss count III of the information against Hoffman. JUDGMENT ON COUNTS I AND II AFFIRMED. JUDGMENT ON COUNT III REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS.