Opinion ID: 1292887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Habitual Criminal EnhancementRepresentation by Counsel

Text: In his final assignment of error, King argues that the trial court erred in finding him to be a habitual criminal. King claims the two prior convictions relied on by the State did not meet the State's burden of proof for enhancement under § 29-2221 because the State failed to show that he was represented by counsel during all critical stages of those criminal proceedings, including conviction and sentencing. Brief for appellant at 23. We conclude that the State failed to meet its burden. [15,16] 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. Hall, 268 Neb. 91, 679 N.W.2d 760 (2004). State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985, 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002), is our latest pronouncement and controls the issue of whether, under § 29-2221, the State has met its burden of showing a prior counseled conviction. See State v. Hall, supra . In Thomas, we held that it not enough for the State to show the presence of counsel at sentencing alone for purposes of § 29-2221. The State must also show the presence of counsel at the time of conviction. State v. Thomas, supra . Absent such proof, the evidence is insufficient to prove that the earlier convictions were counseled for the purposes of § 29-2221. State v. Thomas, supra . Although in Thomas, we held that proof of counsel, or an intelligent and knowing waiver of counsel by the defendant, at the time of sentencing is not alone sufficient for purposes of § 29-2221, we have not previously addressed whether evidence of counsel or the waiver of counsel at the time of conviction alone will suffice. We agree with King that for purposes of habitual criminal sentencing, the State must prove the defendant was represented by counsel at the time of conviction and sentencing, or had knowingly and voluntarily waived representation for those proceedings. See Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S. Ct. 254, 19 L. Ed. 2d 336 (1967) (stating absence of counsel during sentencing after plea of guilty, coupled with assumptions concerning defendant's criminal record which were materially untrue, deprived defendant of due process), citing Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S. Ct. 1252, 92 L. Ed. 1690 (1948). See State v. Paul, 256 Neb. 669, 592 N.W.2d 148 (1999) (where, citing Mempa v. Rhay, supra , we held that advisement to criminal which indicates he or she has no constitutional right to counsel at time of sentencing is prejudicial error). The State claims that exhibits 60, 61, 65, and 66 prove King's 1994 conviction. Exhibit 60 is a document from the office of the state's attorney in Cook County, Illinois. Attached to it is the November 22, 1994, order of sentence and commitment. Exhibit 61 is a certified statement of conviction by the clerk of the circuit court for Cook County, which shows that on November 22, King was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. Exhibit 65 is an order of the circuit court for Cook County dated October 25, 1994, which shows the name of King's defense attorney. Exhibit 66 is King's trial proceedings held in the circuit court for Cook County on October 25. Exhibits 60, 61, 65, and 66, however, do not establish that King was represented by counsel or had waived the right to counsel at the time of sentencing for his 1994 conviction. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in using King's 1994 conviction to enhance King's sentences. [17] In order to be sentenced as a habitual criminal, a defendant must twice have been convicted of a crime, sentenced, and committed to prison, in this state or any other state. § 29-2221. Because King's 1994 sentence could not be utilized for enhancement as a habitual criminal, the State failed to meet its burden of proving two prior convictions, sentences, and incarcerations. Therefore, King should not have been sentenced as a habitual criminal. [18] Because we have determined that King's 1994 conviction could not be used for enhancement purposes, we need not decide the issues presented with respect to King's 1993 conviction. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. State v. Feldhacker, 267 Neb. 145, 672 N.W.2d 627 (2004). We do note, however, that the preferable procedure to prove enhancement is to follow the statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2222 (Reissue 1995), and introduce authenticated copies of the former judgment and commitment. We vacate King's sentences and remand the cause to the trial court with directions for a new enhancement hearing and for resentencing following the hearing.