Opinion ID: 1591818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: intelligent and voluntary pleas

Text: The second summarized assignment of error contends that Gibbs' guilty pleas to the charges of escape and theft by receiving stolen goods were not made intelligently and voluntarily because the court failed to inform Gibbs that the sentences for his convictions might run consecutively. In order to support a finding that a plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly, the court must 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. State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986). We also held in Irish that it was sufficient for the trial court to explain the possible range of penalties for each crime and that it was not necessary to explain that each sentence might run concurrently or consecutively to any other sentence imposed. In the instant case, Gibbs argues that State v. Irish, supra , was not the law in effect at the time he entered his guilty pleas. Gibbs points out that in 1981, the year in which his pleas were entered, State v. Irish, supra , had yet to be decided. Therefore, according to Gibbs, this court must apply State v. Turner, 186 Neb. 424, 183 N.W.2d 763 (1971), because it was the law in effect at the time of his pleas. See State v. Schaeffer, 218 Neb. 786, 359 N.W.2d 106 (1984). Gibbs asserts that under State v. Turner, supra 186 Neb. at 426, 183 N.W.2d at 765, this court held that the ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty outline what should be the minimum procedure in the taking of such pleas. Further, he asserts that the ABA standards provide that a defendant pleading guilty should be advised of the effect which may result from the possible imposition of consecutive sentences. As ingenious as Gibbs' argument may appear, we are not persuaded. In State v. Turner, supra , this court stated that the ABA standards outline what should be the minimum procedure, which suggests that the ABA standards are discretionary and not mandatory in nature. Therefore, the trial court's failure to inform Gibbs that the sentences for his convictions might run consecutively does not constitute reversible error. Furthermore, Gibbs presumes that this court would not have explicitly rejected the ABA standards as a guideline in this area if it had been given an earlier opportunity. This court may well have rejected the ABA standards in 1981 had Gibbs' cases been heard.