Opinion ID: 4178002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Possession of Controlled Substance in Case No. S-16-419: No A buse of Discretion In case No. S-16-419, Chacon assigns and argues that the district court imposed an excessive sentence for possession of a controlled substance. However, he concedes, and we agree, that his sentence on that charge falls within the statutory limits. The criminal activity underlying case No. S-16-419 occurred in July 2015. As a result, Chacon pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance, a Class IV felony, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(3) (Cum. Supp. 2014). For acts committed prior to August 30, 2015, a Class IV felony is punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, or both. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105(1) (Cum. Supp. 2014) and § 28-105(7) (Supp. 2015). See, also, State v. Aguallo, 294 Neb. 177, 881 N.W.2d 918 (2016) (changes made to penalties for Class IV felonies by L.B. 605 do not apply to any offense committed prior to August 30, 2015). Accordingly, Chacon’s sentence of 20 months’ to 5 years’ incarceration falls within the statutory limits. [1-3] Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed. State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718, 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). When imposing a sentence, the sentencing judge - 210 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CHACON Cite as 296 Neb. 203 should consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the violence involved in the commission of the offense. Id. The sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors. Id. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. Id. The record demonstrates that the district court sufficiently considered Chacon’s background and the aforementioned factors in imposing Chacon’s sentence in case No. S-16-419. At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted that a sentence of probation would not adequately protect the public in light of Chacon’s past history of failing to comply with probation and his need for inpatient substance abuse treatment. Further, the district court ordered Chacon’s presentence investigation, which reveals a criminal history spanning decades and details a failure to succeed on probation or take advantage of treatment opportunities. Given these considerations, the district court properly exercised its discretion in imposing Chacon’s sentence for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-419. See State v. Oldson, supra. Possession of Controlled Substance in Case No. S-16-425: Plain Error Chacon assigns and argues that the district court imposed an excessive sentence for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425. He acknowledges that the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits in effect at that time, but he asserts that the district court nonetheless abused its discretion because, under the factors to be considered in - 211 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CHACON Cite as 296 Neb. 203 sentencing, the circumstances support a lesser penalty. As we explain below, we agree that the district court acted within the statutory limits in effect at the time when it sentenced Chacon to 2 years’ imprisonment with 12 months of postrelease supervision for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425. However, considering again, as we did above, Chacon’s criminal history, failed attempts at probation, and past resistance to treatment, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him on this conviction. See State v. Oldson, supra. [4] However, an appellate court always reserves the right to note plain error which was not complained of at trial or on appeal. State v. Samayoa, 292 Neb. 334, 873 N.W.2d 449 (2015). With respect to Chacon’s felony sentence in case No. S-16-425, the State opines that plain error has occurred due to the doctrine enunciated in State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297, 183 N.W.2d 225 (1971), and the interplay between L.B. 605 and L.B. 1094, the latter of which took effect after Chacon’s sentence. We agree. [5-9] We begin by recounting the principles that govern our analysis. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the lower court’s determination. State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777, 857 N.W.2d 334 (2015); State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77, 834 N.W.2d 799 (2013). Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. State v. Raatz, 294 Neb. 852, 885 N.W.2d 38 (2016). It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of a statute. Id. In reading a statute, a court must determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Id. Components of a series or collection - 212 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CHACON Cite as 296 Neb. 203 of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible. Id. L.B. 605 became effective on August 30, 2015, prior to sentencing in the instant case and prior to the events that led the State to charge Chacon with possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425. L.B. 605 amended Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260(5) (Supp. 2015), which provided: For all sentences of imprisonment for Class III, IIIA, or IV felonies, other than those imposed consecutively or concurrently with a sentence to imprisonment for a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, or IIA felony, the court shall impose a determinate sentence within the applicable range in section 28-105, including a period of postrelease supervision. (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, at the time Chacon was sentenced, Nebraska law required prison sentences for Class IV felonies, except for those sentenced concurrently or consecutively with higher class felonies, to be determinate with a period of postrelease supervision. See § 29-2260(5). On March 30, 2016, the district court sentenced Chacon concurrently for two Class IV felonies and a Class W misdemeanor. Thus, Chacon was not sentenced for a Class IV felony that was imposed consecutively or concurrently with a higher class felony. As of the date of Chacon’s sentencing for the Class IV felony in case No. S-16-425, § 28-105(1) and (7) (Supp. 2015) authorized a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment with 12 months’ postrelease supervision, a $10,000 fine, or both. Accordingly, the district court’s determinate sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment with a 12-month period of postrelease supervision fell within the statutory limits and followed the proper procedure for Class IV felonies as outlined in § 29-2260(5) at the time of sentencing. However, on April 20, 2016, after sentencing, but while this matter was pending on appeal, L.B. 1094 took effect. - 213 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CHACON Cite as 296 Neb. 203 L.B. 1094 struck subsection (5) from § 29-2260 and added Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(4) (Reissue 2016), which provides: For any sentence of imprisonment for a Class III, IIIA, or IV felony for an offense committed on or after August 30, 2015, imposed consecutively or concurrently with (a) a sentence for a Class III, IIIA, or IV felony for an offense committed prior to August 30, 2015, or (b) a sentence of imprisonment for a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, or IIA felony, the court shall impose an indeterminate sentence within the applicable range in section 28-105 that does not include a period of post-release supervision, in accord­ance with the process set forth in section 29-2204. (Emphasis supplied.) Had Chacon been sentenced pursuant to L.B. 1094, he would have received an indeterminate sentence without postrelease supervision for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425. This penalty, without postrelease supervision, would have been more favorable to Chacon than the sentence he received under the statute in effect at the time of sentencing. [10] Under the Randolph doctrine, generally, when the Legislature amends a criminal statute by mitigating the punishment after the commission of a prohibited act but before final judgment, the punishment is that provided by the amend­atory act unless the Legislature specifically provided otherwise. See State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297, 183 N.W.2d 225 (1971). But, the Randolph doctrine does not apply if the Legislature created a “new crime” rather than merely changing the penalty for an existing crime. See State v. Duncan, 291 Neb. 1003, 870 N.W.2d 422 (2015). Chacon’s sentence for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425 fits the criteria contemplated by the Randolph doctrine. We have already explained that the application of L.B. 1094 would mitigate Chacon’s sentence, which is not yet final, given that this direct appeal is still - 214 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CHACON Cite as 296 Neb. 203 pending. See State v. Duncan, supra (sentence on appeal is not final judgment until entry of final mandate). Furthermore, L.B. 1094’s sentencing changes to Class IV felonies do not constitute a “new crime,” and the Legislature did not specifically provide that the changes wrought by L.B. 1094 ought not apply retroactively to Class IV felonies that predate it. Indeed, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,135.02 (Cum. Supp. 2016) provides that L.B. 1094’s amendments to § 29-2204.02 “apply to all committed offenders under sentence, on parole, or on probation on or after April 20, 2016.” Chacon was a committed offender under sentence as of April 20, 2016, L.B. 1094’s effective date. Although L.B. 1094 was not in effect at the time of sentencing, the plain language of the statute and the Randolph doctrine compel us to apply it to Chacon’s sentence for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425. As a matter of plain error, therefore, we conclude that Chacon is entitled to retroactive relief under L.B. 1094. Consequently, we vacate Chacon’s sentence for possession of a controlled substance in case No. S-16-425 and remand the cause for resentencing consistent with § 29-2204.02(4) and the standard set forth in State v. Artis, ante p. 172, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2017), wherein we recently explained L.B. 1094’s practical impact on sentencing for Class IV felonies pursuant to § 29-2404.02(4). Driving Under Influence in S-16-425: Not Assigned and A rgued [11] In case No. S-16-425, Chacon was sentenced for both possession of a controlled substance and driving under the influence. Chacon’s brief in case No. S-16-425 assigns that “[t]he sentence imposed in this case was excessive.” However, Chacon’s brief argues only that his sentence for possession of a controlled substance was excessive. An alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error to be considered by an - 215 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. CHACON Cite as 296 Neb. 203 appellate court. State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763, 848 N.W.2d 571 (2014). Accordingly, we do not consider the propriety of Chacon’s sentence for driving under the influence in case No. S-16-425.