Opinion ID: 1842967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Habitual Criminal: Representation by Counsel.

Text: In his second assignment of error, Hall claims that the district court erred in finding that he was a habitual criminal. The district court found that a Platte County, Nebraska, conviction and a New Mexico conviction were eligible to serve as prior convictions under § 29-2221. Regarding the New Mexico conviction, the district court stated that the judge in the [New Mexico] case entered a judgment of conviction on the date of the sentencing. Hall argues that his New Mexico conviction was not valid for enhancement under § 29-2221, because the State failed to show that Hall was represented by counsel at the time of his conviction in the New Mexico case. We conclude there is merit to Hall's claim. Hall concedes that the State met its burden with respect to the Platte County conviction and that this conviction is valid for enhancement purposes. The issue now before us is whether the record demonstrates that the New Mexico conviction is valid for enhancement purposes. In support of his contention that the New Mexico conviction cannot be used for habitual criminal enhancement, Hall relies on this court's decision in State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985, 1012, 637 N.W.2d 632, 658 (2002), where we stated: In a proceeding for an enhanced penalty, the State has the burden to show that the records of a defendant's prior felony convictions, based on pleas of guilty, affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant was represented by counsel or that the defendant, having been informed of the right to counsel, voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived that right. State v. Nelson, [262 Neb.] 896, 636 N.W.2d 620 (2001); State v. Orduna, 250 Neb. 602, 550 N.W.2d 356 (1996). .... The record does not show that the trial court ascertained whether [L.T.] Thomas was represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel at the time of the earlier convictions. The journal entries simply show that Thomas was present with counsel at the time of sentencing, but they do not demonstrate whether he was represented by counsel prior to that time. The evidence offered by the State at the enhancement hearing did not establish that Thomas was represented by counsel or had waived the right to counsel at the time of the prior convictions. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove Thomas' earlier convictions for purposes of sentence enhancement. Hall notes that, as in Thomas, the evidence offered by the State in this case did not establish that he was represented by or had waived counsel at the time of his New Mexico conviction. Hall notes that the evidence merely established that Hall was present with counsel at the time of sentencing. Furthermore, contrary to the district court's observations, Hall was not convicted and sentenced on the same day, but, rather, was convicted by a jury on July 16, 1981, and thereafter sentenced on September 8. Given these facts, Hall argues that the record fails to show that he was represented by counsel at the time of the New Mexico conviction and that such conviction cannot be used for sentence enhancement purposes. In opposing Hall's arguments, the State contends that State v. Sherrod, 229 Neb. 128, 425 N.W.2d 616 (1988), applies. Sherrod states in relevant part that the State establishes a prima facie case for proving a prior, counseled conviction by producing appropriate record evidence of a conviction which discloses that at a critical point in the proceedingsarraignment, trial, conviction, or sentencingthe defendant had either intelligently and voluntarily waived counsel or in fact was represented by counsel at one of those times. The defendant then has the burden of coming forward with evidence that in fact his prior conviction was uncounseled. 229 Neb. at 134, 425 N.W.2d at 621. See, State v. Green, 238 Neb. 328, 470 N.W.2d 736 (1991) (enhancement for third-offense driving while intoxicated); State v. Dyke, 231 Neb. 621, 437 N.W.2d 164 (1989) (enhancement for third-offense driving while intoxicated). The State claims that it presented evidence that showed that Hall was represented by counsel at the time of his New Mexico sentencing, which is sufficient under Sherrod, and that as a result, Hall had the burden of coming forward with evidence to show that he had been uncounseled. Since Hall failed to present any evidence to that end, the State argues its burden had been met and that the New Mexico conviction was valid for enhancement. This court recognizes that there is tension between our decisions in Sherrod and Thomas. However, we conclude that Sherrod is an incomplete statement of the law and that Thomas, which is our latest pronouncement, controls the issue of whether under the habitual criminal statute, § 29-2221, the State can establish its burden of showing a prior, counseled conviction by merely showing that the defendant was represented at the time of sentencing. Under Thomas, which we reaffirm, a showing of the presence of counsel at sentencing will not alone establish the State's case that a defendant's prior conviction was counseled for purposes of § 29-2221. We note that in State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985, 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002), we stated that when the State seeks to use prior convictions based on pleas of guilty to enhance a defendant's sentence for habitual criminal purposes, the State has the burden of showing that the defendant had been represented by or had waived counsel. In the instant case, we note that Hall's prior New Mexico conviction was based upon a jury verdict of guilty rather than on a guilty plea. This court has stated that making a plea of guilty is `the equivalent of a conviction by trial and verdict or a finding of guilt by the court.' State v. Ondrak, 212 Neb. 840, 842, 326 N.W.2d 188, 190 (1982) (quoting Stewart v. Ress, 164 Neb. 876, 83 N.W.2d 901 (1957)). As a result, we conclude that the State's burden of establishing prior, counseled convictions is the same whether a defendant's prior conviction is based on a plea of guilty, a jury verdict of guilty, or a finding of guilt by a trial court. Given that Thomas is the prevailing authority, we apply Thomas to the facts of this case when considering whether the State has met its burden. The State in this case introduced into evidence an order entitled Judgment, Sentence and Commitment which reflected that Hall was sentenced in New Mexico on September 8, 1981, following his conviction on July 16. The judgment, sentence, and commitment order states that Hall appeared at the sentencing hearing with counsel. However, the record does not contain any evidence to affirmatively show that Hall had been represented by counsel or had waived counsel at the time of the jury's guilty verdict on July 16. The facts in Hall's case mirror those of Thomas, where the State introduced evidence that Thomas had been represented by counsel at his sentencing on an earlier conviction, but the record contained no evidence showing that Thomas had been represented by counsel or had waived counsel prior to sentencing. In Thomas, we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove the earlier convictions were counseled for the purposes of habitual criminal sentence enhancement. In this case, the State failed to meet its burden of showing that Hall had been represented by or had waived counsel at the time of his New Mexico conviction and it was error for the district court to find Hall to be a habitual criminal. As a result, we must vacate Hall's sentence and remand the cause to the district court with directions for a new enhancement hearing and for resentencing following the hearing. In doing so, we observe that no presentence investigation was performed prior to the district court's initial sentencing of Hall, and in fact, Hall notes in his appellate brief that the district court imposed sentence upon him without the benefit of such an investigation. We note that the applicable version of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2261 (Cum.Supp.2002) stated that [u]nless it is impractical to do so, when an offender has been convicted of a felony, the court shall not impose sentence without first ordering a presentence investigation.... Upon remand, unless the district court determines that it is impractical to do so, the district court shall order a presentence investigation prior to Hall's resentencing.