Court Opinion

ID: 9733110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:53:48.942113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:38.505794
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J.,
dissenting.
As noted in my dissent filed in State v. Tejral, ante p. 329, 482 N.W.2d 6 (1992), and as previously observed in my dissents in State v. Crane, ante p. 32, 480 N.W.2d 401 (1992), State v. Johns, 233 Neb. 477, 445 N.W.2d 914 (1989), and State v. Oliver, 230 Neb. 864, 434 N.W.2d 293 (1989), Nebraska’s criminal procedure, evolving through decisions of this court, precludes a defendant’s inquiry to determine whether the defendant’s prior plea-based conviction used for enhancement of penalty is constitutionally valid in accordance with due process required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969), and State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986). Hence, I dissent to the continuous denial of due process reflected by and inherent in Partee.