Opinion ID: 2189074
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: penalties for the assault charge

Text: White argues that the record fails to show he knew the possible penalties for the assault charge and that such lack of information rendered his nolo contendere plea involuntary. As a matter of due process in the Nebraska criminal justice system, a defendant's guilty or nolo contendere plea must satisfy the requirements expressed in State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986). See State v. High, 225 Neb. 690, 407 N.W.2d 776 (1987). In Irish, this court stated: [I]n order to support a finding that a plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, 1. The court must a. inform the 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; and b. examine the defendant to determine that he or she understands the foregoing. 2. Additionally, the record must establish that a. there is a factual basis for the plea; and b. the defendant knew the range of penalties for the crime with which he or she is charged. 223 Neb. at 820, 394 N.W.2d at 883. Accord State v. Walker, 235 Neb. 85, 453 N.W.2d 482 (1990). [W]hile in order for a defendant to enter a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty, he or she must know the penalty for the crime to which he or she is pleading, and although it is preferable that such knowledge be imparted by the judge accepting the plea, it is nonetheless possible to prove the defendant's knowledge by other means. State v. Mentzer, 233 Neb. 843, 845-46, 448 N.W.2d 409, 410-11 (1989). Accord State v. Fischer, 220 Neb. 664, 371 N.W.2d 316 (1985). See, also, State v. Irish, supra . Because the district court, before accepting White's nolo contendere plea to the assault charge, failed to inform White concerning the penalties possible on conviction for that charge, we look elsewhere in the record to determine whether White knew the range of penalties for conviction on the assault charge. The record clearly establishes that before White pled nolo contendere to both charges, the court informed White that the penalty range for the attempted robbery conviction was imprisonment for a minimum term of 1 year and a maximum of 20 years, a fine of $25,000, or both such imprisonment and fine. White's lawyer told him that the total of years for imprisonment on convictions for the attempted robbery charge and the assault charge was 25 years. As a matter of simple arithmetic, if there was a total of 25 years on both charges and a maximum term of 20 years on the attempted robbery charge, the remainder, namely, 5 years, pertained to the assault charge. Apart from the arithmetic implicit in his lawyer's letter, that is, the maximum possible sentences ... can be up to 25 years in prison, White's lawyer supplied credible testimony which, if believed by the district court, established that the lawyer informed White concerning the range of possible penalties for a conviction on the assault charge, a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or a fine of $10,000 or both. Although White denied receipt of that information from his lawyer, whether such information was actually imparted from the lawyer to White was a question of witness credibility and a factual determination for the district court. Consequently, there is evidence which supports a finding that White knew that the maximum term of imprisonment for a conviction on the assault charge was 5 years, as specified in § 28-105(1). Also, from the testimony of White's lawyer, there is evidence that White was supplied with information concerning a fine on the assault charge, namely, a $10,000 fine, or both the statutorily specified imprisonment and fine. Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the district court's findings on White's motion for postconviction relief were clearly erroneous. See, State v. Williams, 224 Neb. 114, 396 N.W.2d 114 (1986); State v. Dixon, 237 Neb. 630, 467 N.W.2d 397 (1991); State v. Clear, 236 Neb. 648, 463 N.W.2d 581 (1990). Consequently, in accordance with State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986), we conclude that White is not entitled to postconviction relief; hence, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED.