Court Opinion

ID: 9730735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:22:09.205507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:08.902625
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
In State v. Laravie, 192 Neb. 625, 223 N.W.2d 435 (1974), we held that a trial court was not authorized to impose an indeterminate sentence for second degree murder. Upon further consideration of the Laravie case, I now believe the decision was in error, and that the judgment in this case should be affirmed.
The decision in the Laravie case was based upon our decision in State v. Suggett, 189 Neb. 714, 204 N.W.2d 793 (1973), in which we affirmed a sentence of 20 to SO years’ imprisonment for second degree murder. The Suggett case held that the limitation in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,105 (Reissue 1976), that the minimum sentence imposed shall not be more than one-third of the maximum term authorized by law, was not applicable to an offense for which a sentence of life imprisonment was authorized because it was impossible to determine *250what would be one-third of a sentence to life imprisonment. The opinion concluded that § 83-1,105 “was not legislatively designed to apply in cases of this type.”
The decision in the Suggett case affirmed an indeterminate sentence of 20 to 30 years’ imprisonment for second degree murder. The opinion in the Laravie case simply misconstrued the holding in the Suggett case.
The Laravie case did not abolish indeterminate sentences in second degree murder cases. To the contrary, it resulted in every sentence in a second degree murder case being effective as an indeterminate sentence with the statutory minimum of imprisonment for 10 years as the minimum term. See, State v. Thompson, 189 Neb. 115, 201 N.W.2d 204 (1972); State v. Hedglin, 192 Neb. 545, 222 N.W.2d 829 (1974). Upon remand and resentencing in this case, whatever sentence may be imposed, the effect will be an indeterminate sentence for 10 years to whatever term may be imposed, including life imprisonment.
The effect of the Laravie case was to prevent the trial court from imposing a sentence which would require the defendant to serve more than at least the statutory minimum of imprisonment for 10 years. The decision in the Laravie case was in error. and should be overruled. The judgment in this case should be affirmed.
Clinton and Hastings, JJ., join in this dissent.