Court Opinion

ID: 9657282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:18:49.820972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:39.793786
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that it was error to fail to inform the defendant that it was mandatory that the sentence on count II run consecutively to any other sentence imposed. However, based on State v. Golden, 226 Neb. 863, 415 N.W.2d 469 (1987), I feel the majority is incorrect in holding that this error is not prejudicial just because the defendant knew the sentences “could be stacked” and that he could serve “a possibility of up to as high as three to 60 years on the imprisonment.”
In addition to the requirements set out in State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986), and as we held in Golden, supra, it is prejudicial error if the defendant is not informed of *460the minimum sentence or that the applicable sentencing statute mandates each sentence to run consecutively to any other sentence imposed.
Shanahan, J., joins in this dissent.