Opinion ID: 2812188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Benjamin Frederick was found guilty in a bench trial before the county court of driving during revocation in violation of - 245 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FREDERICK Cite as 291 Neb. 243 § 60-4,108(1), a Class II misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 30 days of jail time and 9 months of probation. Before trial, Frederick moved to suppress the testimony of the State’s only witness, the officer who observed him driving with a suspended license. The officer testified that Frederick was driving a vehicle without license plates in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Kearney, Nebraska. The officer never observed Frederick operate the vehicle outside of the parking lot. Arguments were not made on the record, but the court responded that the issue raised by Frederick in the motion to suppress “appear[ed] to be more of a trial issue.” The court said that it would need “to read all these statutes and see how the scheme fits” before deciding the motion. The motion was later denied. At trial, the officer testified that around 3 p.m. on December 31, 2012, a caller reported that “Benjamin Frederick” was driving without a license in the Wal-Mart parking lot. The officer responded to the call in a marked police cruiser. The officer observed the vehicle described by the caller when he arrived at the Wal-Mart parking lot. The vehicle did not have license plates. The officer was able to visually identify the driver as Frederick. There was a female passenger in the vehicle. The officer followed Frederick’s vehicle as it weaved up and down the parking lot aisles. The officer confirmed on his in-car mobile data terminal that Frederick’s driver’s license was revoked. The officer did not activate the police cruiser’s lights, but Frederick eventually pulled into a parking space and exited the vehicle. Frederick admitted to the officer that he did not have a driver’s license. The State submitted into evidence Frederick’s records with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The records show that at the time the officer observed Frederick driving in the Wal-Mart parking lot, his license was administratively revoked pursuant to “Section 60-498.02 et seq.” as a result of his second offense of driving under the influence (DUI), - 246 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FREDERICK Cite as 291 Neb. 243 in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,196 (Reissue 2010). The administrative license revocation was to begin on July 7, 2012, and end on July 7, 2013. The records also contain the county court judgment for ­second-offense DUI and its order sentencing Frederick to a 1-year license revocation beginning on November 14, 2012, and ending on July 7, 2013. The records do not reflect an explicit assessment of points under the points system established in Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-4,182 to 60-4,186 (Reissue 2010 & Cum. Supp. 2014). Frederick moved to dismiss the State’s case for failure to make a prima facie case. The arguments were not made on the record, but the court expressed that there had already been a motion to suppress on the same issue. The court opined that it had found the State’s argument persuasive and saw “no reason to deviate from that reading of the law at this time.” When the court subsequently discussed with Frederick the scheduling of sentencing, it stated that it assumed Frederick was planning to appeal to “get a definitive decision from a higher court.” Frederick appealed to the district court, arguing that the offense of driving under revocation cannot occur in a privately maintained parking lot. The district court affirmed the conviction. The district court observed that there are two separate criminal offenses in the Motor Vehicle Operator’s License Act1 concerning the operation of a motor vehicle once a person has obtained an operator’s license and has forfeited it. One offense is contained in § 60-4,186, the other is contained in § 60-4,108. Frederick was charged and convicted of violating § 60-4,108. Section 60-4,186 provides, “It shall be unlawful to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways after revocation of an operator’s license under sections 60-4,182 to 60-4,186 . . . .” 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-462 to 60-4,188 (Reissue 2010 & Cum. Supp. 2014). - 247 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FREDERICK Cite as 291 Neb. 243 Highway is defined by § 60-470 as “the entire width between the boundary limits of any street, road, avenue, boulevard, or way which is publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of motor vehicle travel.” Alley is defined by § 60-607 as “a highway intended to provide access to the rear or side of lots or buildings and not intended for the purpose of through vehicular traffic.” There is no dispute that the Wal-Mart parking lot is not a “highway.” Section 60-4,183 is the pertinent statute describing the rev­ ocation to which § 60-4,108 applies. It states: Whenever it comes to the attention of the director that any person has, as disclosed by the records of the director, accumulated a total of twelve or more points within any period of two years, as set out in section 60-4,182, the director shall (1) summarily revoke the operator’s license of such person . . . . The district court reasoned that § 60-4,186 and its limitation to driving with a revoked license “on the public highways” pertains only to licenses that have been revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles due to an accumulation of points under the point system. Section 60-4,108 states in relevant part: (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle during any period that he or she is subject to a court order not to operate any motor vehicle for any purpose or during any period that his or her operator’s license has been revoked or impounded pursuant to conviction or convictions for violation of any law or laws of this state, by an order of any court, or by an administrative order of the director. The district court reasoned that, unlike § 60-4,186, the provisions of § 60-4,108 are not limited to driving under revocation on public highways. Frederick’s license had been revoked pursuant to a conviction, by a court order, and by an administrative order of the director, as described in § 60-4,108. Therefore, the district court concluded that the - 248 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FREDERICK Cite as 291 Neb. 243 evidence was sufficient to support Frederick’s conviction. Frederick appeals. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Frederick assigns, consolidated, that the district court erred in holding that § 60-4,108 does not require proof the driver was operating on a public highway and in thereby affirming his conviction and sentence.