Court Opinion

ID: 9720530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:34:05.503893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:19.120242
License: Public Domain

Hastings, J.,
dissenting.
I am in complete agreement with the majority opinion in every respect except for its finding that defendant is an habitual criminal under section 29-2221, R. R. S. 1943. In my opinion, the Legislature did not intend to nor does the language of its enactment reasonably permit such designation to apply to one whose prior crimes consist of two burglaries committed within minutes of each other, which resulted in the filing of a single information and con*444viction, sentencing, and commitment out of the same court on the same day.
“Recidivist statutes are enacted in an effort to deter and punish incorrigible offenders. * * * They are intended to apply to persistent violators who have not responded to the restraining influence of conviction and punishment.” State v. Conley, 222 N. W. 2d 501 (Iowa, 1974). “It is the commission of the second felony after conviction for the first, and the commission of the third felony after conviction of the second that is deemed to make the defendant an incorrigible.” (Emphasis supplied.) Coleman v. Commonwealth, 276 Ky. 802, 125 S. W. 2d 728 (1939). Finally, “* * * where the sequence of prior convictions is in issue, the rule followed in the majority of jurisdictions is that each successive felony must be committed after the previous felony conviction in order to count towards habitual criminal status.” State v. Carlson, 560 P. 2d 26 (Alaska, 1977). See, also, Faull v. State, 178 Wis. 66, 189 N. W. 274 (1922); Washington v. United States, 343 A. 2d 560 (App. D. C., 1975); Hutchinson v. State, 481 S. W. 2d 881 (Tex. Crim. App., 1972); Cooper v. State, 284 N. E. 2d 799 (Ind., 1972); Holst v. Owens, 24 F. 2d 100 (5th Cir., 1928); Karz v. State, 279 So. 2d 383 (Fla. App., 1973); State v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. App. 943, 472 P. 2d 629 (1970); State v. Lohrbach, 217 Kans. 588, 538 P. 2d 678 (1975); Moore v. Coiner, 303 F. Supp. 185 (N. D., W. Va., 1969); Hill v. Boles, 149 W. Va. 779, 143 S. E. 2d 467 (1965); State v. Sanchez, 87 N. M. 256, 531 P. 2d 1229 (1975); Annotation, 24 A. L. R. 2d 1247.
I am authorized to state that Krivosha, C. J., and McCown, J., join in this dissent.