Court Opinion

ID: 9893985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 14:08:10.491189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:01.599699
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                                         STATE V. NAGEL

  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
 AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

                                 STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
                                                 V.

                                 VINCENT R. NAGEL, APPELLANT.

                       Filed October 31, 2023.    Nos. A-23-011, A-23-012.

       Appeals from the District Court for Hall County: PATRICK M. LEE, Judge. Affirmed.
       Jerrod Jaeger, of Jaeger Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
       Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.

       BISHOP, ARTERBURN, and WELCH, Judges.
       ARTERBURN, Judge.
                                        INTRODUCTION
         Vincent R. Nagel appeals his convictions and sentences in two separate cases which have
been consolidated on appeal. Pursuant to a plea agreement encompassing both cases, Nagel pled
no contest to possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person in case No. A-23-011 and pled
no contest to attempted second degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm in case No.
A-23-012. The district court for Hall County sentenced Nagel to 10 to 30 years’ incarceration with
credit for 2 days in the first case and to a sentence of 30 to 50 years’ incarceration on each of the
two charges in the second case, with credit given for 233 days. The court ordered the 30 to 50 year
sentences to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to the 10 to 30 year sentence in the
first case. On appeal, Nagel asserts that the sentences were excessive and that the State breached
the plea agreement. Upon our review, we affirm.

                                                 -1-
                                        BACKGROUND
        On March 24, 2022, Nagel was charged by information in case No. A-23-011 with
possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, a Class ID felony. On August 15, in a
separate information in case No. A-23-012, Nagel was initially charged with 8 counts: attempted
second degree murder, a Class II felony; unlawful discharge of a firearm from or near a vehicle, a
Class IC felony; unlawful discharge of a firearm, a Class ID felony; three counts of use of a deadly
weapon to commit a felony, each a Class IC felony; possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited
person, a Class ID felony, and possession of a controlled substance, a Class IV felony. While the
case was pending, the State filed an amended information dismissing the unlawful discharge of a
firearm from or near a vehicle charge and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.
        Pursuant to a plea agreement involving both cases, Nagel ultimately entered pleas of no
contest to the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in case No. A-23-011 and
to attempted second degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm in case No. A-23-012. All
remaining charges were dismissed and the State agreed not to file any additional charges against
Nagel arising from the events which led to these charges. The State further agreed to recommend
that Nagel should receive concurrent sentences as to all charges. With respect to the length of the
sentence, the State agreed to recommend that Nagel “be ordered to serve no more than 22 years
before he becomes eligible for parole.”
        Nagel entered his no contest pleas on October 5, 2022. At the hearing, the court recounted
the plea agreement, and Nagel affirmed that he understood the conditions of the agreement, he had
adequate time to discuss the agreement with his attorney, and he was entering the plea willingly.
The court then explained that the portion of the plea agreement related to sentencing
recommendations was an agreement between the parties, but it was not binding on the court. The
following discussion then took place:
                THE COURT: The Court will consider the agreement, but is free to enter any
        sentence that the Court believes is appropriate.
                [Nagel]: I understand.
                THE COURT: So you understand the plea agreement you’re filing, in terms of
        Paragraph 2, the sentencing agreement, is not binding upon the Court?
                [Nagel]: I understand.

After ensuring that Nagel understood the terms and implications of the plea agreement, the court
heard the following factual bases from the State:
        [W]ith regard to [case No. A-23-011], the State’s evidence would show that on or about
        February 6, 2022, the Defendant, Vincent Nagel, went to the residence of Crystal Dahlke,
        the mother of his child. While there, a fight ensued between Nagel and Steven Skarka. At
        some point during the fight, Nagel pulled out a firearm and pointed it at Skarka. Dahlke
        then took the gun from Nagel. All of these events were captured on video and observed by
        officers when they arrived on the scene. The firearm was later located in the basement of
        the home. [Nagel] has previously been convicted of a felony and is prohibited from
        possessing a firearm.
                All of these events occurred in Hall County, Nebraska.

                                               -2-
               In regard to [case No. A-23-012], the State’s evidence would show that on or about
       April 25, 2022, the Defendant, Vincent Nagel, pulled up in a white Toyota Avalon to the
       Island Inn on South Locust Street seeking out Joaquin Garcia. [Nagel] located Garcia at
       the location, brandished a handgun out the window of the vehicle, and then while in the
       vehicle, fired multiple shots in the direction of Garcia who was standing in front of the
       motel. These shots missed Garcia, but struck the Grand Island Inn, hitting a room that was
       occupied at the time.
               All of these events occurred in Hall County, Nebraska.

The court found that the factual bases were sufficient to support Nagel’s pleas. The court also
found that Nagel understood and properly waived his constitutional rights and entered his pleas
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court accepted the pleas and found Nagel guilty of
the three charges. A presentence investigation report (PSR) was ordered, and the cases were set
for sentencing.
        Sentencing was held on December 14, 2022. Defense counsel began his argument by
discussing the sentencing recommendation both the defense and the State were operating under
according to the plea agreement. Defense counsel stated, “[t]he State is recommending concurrent
sentences for each count, each of the three counts, and also that the sentence on the bottom number
be 22 years.” The following exchange then occurred:
                THE COURT: So the agreement is 22 years until he is parole eligible?
                [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That’s correct. He would have to serve three years for the
        mandatory minimum on the ID.

Defense counsel asked the court to follow the sentencing recommendation agreed to in the plea
agreement. The State did as well: “[T]o make sure that I satisfy the plea agreement in this case,
the State is recommending concurrent sentences between these two cases. The State is
recommending a bottom number of 22 years on these 2 sentences.” However, as to the upper
portion of Nagel’s sentence, the State requested the maximum sentence. The State noted that
Nagel’s actions were not mistakes, but rather “heinous errors of judgment” and “choices that he
made.” Further, the State believed the maximum sentence was appropriate because, post-release,
Nagel would be supervised under terms of parole for a significant period of time.
        When the State concluded its argument, Nagel was given an opportunity for allocution.
Nagel used this time to apologize to the court, his family, and his potential victims. He did not
object to the State’s comments or move to withdraw his pleas. The court then asked defense
counsel if there was any legal reason why the sentence could not be imposed that day, and counsel
responded “[n]o.”
        Information in the PSR revealed that, at the time of sentencing, Nagel was 41 years old and
had a somewhat lengthy criminal history. Notably, Nagel was convicted of distribution of a
controlled substance around 2012, which resulted in a period of federal incarceration, and third
degree domestic abuse in 2021, which resulted in jail time. Nagel has participated in supervised
release and probation, both of which were revoked. At the time of sentencing, Nagel also had a
pending case in Lancaster County, Nebraska.

                                               -3-
        On the Level of Service Case Management Inventory assessment, Nagel had an overall risk
level of very high, and scored high in the key life areas of criminal history, leisure/recreation,
companions, alcohol/drug problems, procriminal attitude, and antisocial pattern. On the Substance
Abuse Questionnaire, Nagel scored in the maximum risk range for drugs, violence, and antisocial
behaviors, and scored in the problematic risk range for alcohol and aggressiveness. Nagel reported
that he began using methamphetamine at age 19 and has struggled abstaining from the drug ever
since. His substance abuse evaluation revealed diagnoses of severe methamphetamine use disorder
and moderate alcohol and cannabis use disorders. Nagel wrote the court a letter detailing his
struggle with drug use and his remorse concerning his crimes.
        The court indicated that it had reviewed the PSR and its attachments prior to the sentencing
hearing. The court reviewed the contents of the PSR with Nagel, including his prior convictions,
his drug use, and his various assessment scores. The court emphasized that while Nagel was an
experienced plumber and had a supportive family, he continued to use drugs and commit crimes.
The court also stressed that Nagel’s assessment scores showed he was at a high risk of reoffending
and was a substantial risk to the community. The court concluded that Nagel’s crimes were serious
and violent and that Nagel was fortunate that no one was killed when he discharged his firearm.
        In case No. A-23-011, the court sentenced Nagel to 10 to 30 years’ incarceration with credit
for 2 days served for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. In case No. A-23-012,
the court sentenced Nagel to 30 to 50 years’ incarceration with credit for 233 days served for
attempted second degree murder, and a concurrent term of 30 to 50 years’ incarceration for
unlawful discharge of a firearm. The sentences for the two charges in case No. A-23-012 were
ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence in case No. A-23-011, resulting in an aggregate
sentence of 40 to 80 years’ incarceration.
        Nagel appeals.
                                   ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
        Nagel assigns first that the district court erred in imposing excessive sentences. Nagel next
assigns that the district court erred by allowing the State to argue for a sentence more punitive than
that contemplated by the plea agreement.
                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
       An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an
abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Abligo, 312 Neb. 74, 978 N.W.2d 42 (2022). An
abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or
unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. Id.
       When the facts are undisputed, the question of whether there has been a breach of a plea
agreement is a question of law. State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957, 892 N.W.2d 52 (2017). When issues
on appeal present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent
conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below. State v. Iddings, 304 Neb. 759, 936
N.W.2d 747 (2020).

                                                -4-
                                            ANALYSIS
Excessive Sentences.
          Nagel first assigns that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive
sentences. Upon our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed.
          When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court should customarily consider the
defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural
background, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the
offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the violence involved in the commission of
the offense. State v. Mora, 298 Neb. 185, 903 N.W.2d 244 (2017). However, the sentencing court
is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors. Id. The appropriateness of a sentence
is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the
defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s
life. Id.
          Nagel cannot and does not dispute that any of his sentences were not within the statutory
limits. As charged by the State, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person is a Class
ID felony. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206 (Cum. Supp. 2022). A Class ID felony is punishable by a
mandatory minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 50 years’ imprisonment. Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Cum. Supp. 2022). The district court’s sentence of 10 to 30 years’
incarceration with credit for 2 days served is clearly within the statutory limits. Nagel’s unlawful
discharge of a firearm conviction is also a Class ID felony. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1212.02 (Reissue
2016). The district court’s sentence of 30 to 50 years’ incarceration on that conviction is within
the statutory limits as well.
          Similarly, the district court’s sentence of 30 to 50 years’ incarceration for Nagel’s
attempted second degree murder conviction is within the statutory limits. Attempted second degree
murder is a Class II felony. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-201 (Reissue 2016). A Class II felony is
punishable by a minimum of 1 year imprisonment and a maximum of 50 years’ imprisonment.
§ 28-105.
          Nagel contends that the court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider and
weigh the sentencing factors. We disagree. We first note that a sentencing determination is not
limited to the consideration of the sentencing factors enumerated in State v. Mora, supra.
Nevertheless, the record shows that the court reviewed and considered Nagel’s age, mentality,
education, experience, social and cultural background, past criminal record, law-abiding conduct,
the nature of the offenses, the motivation for the offenses, and the violence involved in the
offenses. The court noted that while Nagel was an experienced plumber and had a supportive
family, he continued to use drugs and commit crimes. His criminal history included serious
convictions, including domestic assault and distribution of a controlled substance. Nagel’s
assessment scores also indicated he was at a high risk of reoffending and was a substantial risk to
the community. While the court acknowledged that Nagel expressed remorse in his letter, it
ultimately found that the sentencing factors and the circumstances surrounding the crimes
supported a significant period of incarceration.
          The district court considered all of the relevant factors, including Nagel’s substance abuse
problems and his criminal history. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed.

                                                -5-
Breach of Plea Agreement.
         Nagel next assigns that the district court erred by allowing the State to argue for a sentence
more punitive than that contemplated by the plea agreement. Specifically, Nagel argues that the
State violated the plea agreement by recommending that the upper number of each sentence
imposed be the statutory maximum. We find no merit in Nagel’s argument.
         First, Nagel has failed to properly preserve this alleged error for appellate review. The
Nebraska Supreme Court has held that a defendant who remains silent at the time of sentencing
with regard to an alleged breach of a plea agreement by the State can neither move to withdraw
the plea nor seek specific performance of the agreement. State v. Gonzalez-Faguaga, 266 Neb. 72,
662 N.W.2d 581 (2003). The record shows that despite Nagel and his attorney being present for
the State’s argument at sentencing, no objection was made during the course of the sentencing
hearing. Nagel admits in his brief on appeal that no one raised this issue to the district court. Thus,
Nagel has waived his right to assert as error on appeal any purported breach of the plea agreement
by the State.
         In the alternative, Nagel asserts that the sentencing court committed plain error by allowing
the State to breach the agreement. We find no plain error. Courts enforce only those terms and
conditions about which the parties to a plea agreement did in fact agree. State v. Smith, 295 Neb.
957, 892 N.W.2d 52 (2017). A party breaches a plea agreement either by: (1) violating an express
term of the agreement, or (2) acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but
still incompatible with explicit promises made therein. See, State v. Iddings, 304 Neb. 759, 936
N.W.2d 747 (2020); State v. Landera, 285 Neb. 243, 826 N.W.2d 570 (2013). Further, plain error
will be noted only where an error is evident from the record, prejudicially affects a substantial right
of a litigant, and is of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice
or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. State v.
Burbach, 20 Neb. App. 157, 821 N.W.2d 215, aff’d, 284 Neb. 870, 823 N.W.2d 697 (2012).
         Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend that Nagel “be ordered to serve
no more than 22 years before he becomes eligible for parole.” At sentencing, defense counsel
confirmed this phrasing was accurate by informing the court that both parties were recommending
that “the sentence on the bottom number be 22 years.” The State then recommended “a bottom
number of 22 years on these 2 sentences.” We first note that under the plain terms of the written
plea agreement, the State was allowed to recommend a sentence that, after good time reductions,
would still require Nagel to serve 22 years. Instead, the State recommended an actual bottom
number of 22 years, which with good time credit could result in parole at a substantially earlier
point. Further, the plain language of the plea agreement does not place any restrictions on what the
State could recommend with respect to the upper limit of Nagel’s sentence. The State’s
characterization of the crimes and its recommendation regarding the upper portion of Nagel’s
sentence are neither violations of an express term nor are they incompatible acts with the explicit
promises made in the agreement. Therefore, as there is no breach of the plea agreement, we find
no plain error in the State’s recommendations or the court’s consideration of them.
                                           CONCLUSION
       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the district court.
                                                                                            AFFIRMED.

                                                 -6-