Opinion ID: 2015859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: inclusion of letter from kelly's family in presentence report

Text: In Strohl's final assignment of error, Strohl claims the district court erred by imposing an excessive sentence predicated on the court's receipt of a letter from Kelly's family as part of the presentence report. A sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed upon appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Hill, 255 Neb. 173, 583 N.W.2d 20 (1998); State v. Pattno, 254 Neb. 733, 579 N.W.2d 503 (1998); State v. Chojolan, 253 Neb. 591, 571 N.W.2d 621 (1997). As the district court's sentence was within the statutory limit, see §§ 28-202 and 28-105(1), our inquiry is limited to reviewing for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when the sentencing court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive the litigant of a substantial right and a just result. State v. Hill, supra ; State v. Pattno, supra ; State v. Chojolan, supra . In this regard, the sentencing phase is separate and apart from the trial phase, and the traditional rules of evidence may be relaxed following conviction so that the sentencing authority can receive all information pertinent to the imposition of sentence. State v. Ryan, 248 Neb. 405, 534 N.W.2d 766 (1995). Additionally, a sentencing court has broad discretion as to the source and type of evidence and information that may be used in determining the kind and extent of the punishment to be imposed. Id. In State v. Rose, 183 Neb. 809, 811, 164 N.W.2d 646, 648 (1969), we stated: Highly relevant, if not essential, to [a judge's] determination of an appropriate sentence is the gaining of knowledge concerning the defendant's life, character, and previous conduct. In gaining this information, the trial court may consider reports of probation officers, police reports, affidavits, and other information including [the judge's] own observations of the defendant. (Emphasis supplied.) The letter contained information regarding Strohl's prior murder conviction and a request by Kelly's family that Strohl receive the maximum sentence available for the charge of conspiracy to escape. We determine the letter from Kelly's family members is relevant to Strohl's character and his previous conduct. We further determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion by including the letter in the presentence report and that the sentence imposed was not excessive.