Court Opinion

ID: 9399198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 14:07:37.228508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.125400
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
06/02/2023 09:07 AM CDT

                                                         - 406 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        314 Nebraska Reports
                                                STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                                                 Cite as 314 Neb. 406

                                        State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
                                        Munif J. Alkazahy, appellant.
                                                    ___ N.W.2d ___

                                           Filed June 2, 2023.     No. S-22-480.

                 1. Administrative Law: Statutes: Appeal and Error. The meaning and
                    interpretation of statutes and regulations are questions of law which an
                    appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s conclusion.
                 2. Sentences: Appeal and Error. A sentence imposed within statutory
                    limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by
                    the trial court.
                 3. ____: ____. An abuse of discretion takes place when the sentencing
                    court’s reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive a
                    litigant of a substantial right and a just result.
                 4. Blood, Breath, and Urine Tests: Drunk Driving: Evidence: Proof.
                    The four foundational elements which the State must establish as a foun-
                    dation for the admissibility of a breath test in a driving under the influ-
                    ence prosecution are as follows: (1) that the testing device was working
                    properly at the time of the testing, (2) that the person administering the
                    test was qualified and held a valid permit, (3) that the test was properly
                    conducted under the methods stated by the Department of Health and
                    Human Services, and (4) that all other statutes were satisfied.
                 5. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Where a sentence imposed within the
                    statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court
                    must determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion in con-
                    sidering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable legal
                    principles in determining the sentence to be imposed.
                 6. Sentences. In determining a sentence to be imposed, relevant factors
                    customarily considered and applied are the defendant’s (1) age, (2)
                    mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural back-
                    ground, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct,
                    and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the
                                   - 407 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    314 Nebraska Reports
                           STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 406

    offense and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of
    the crime.
 7. ____. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judg-
    ment 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.

   Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Ryan
S. Post, Judge. Affirmed.

  Timothy S. Noerrlinger, of Naylor & Rappl Law Office, for
appellant.

   Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss
for appellee.

  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

  Funke, J.
                       INTRODUCTION
  Munif J. Alkazahy was convicted of driving under the influ-
ence (DUI) causing serious bodily injury, a Class IIIA felony.
Alkazahy was found guilty following a suppression hearing
and a bench trial; he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment,
post-release supervision, and revocation of his driver’s license.
He appeals his conviction and sentence.

                        BACKGROUND
   On June 5, 2020, a pickup truck driven by Alkazahy failed
to stop at a stop sign at the intersection of Highway 79 and
West Branched Oak Road in Lancaster County, Nebraska, and
collided with another vehicle. The other vehicle rolled onto its
side, and the vehicle’s passenger was injured. Law enforcement
responded to the collision, and the injured passenger was trans-
ported to a hospital.
   Lancaster County Deputy Sheriff Lance Johnson spoke
with Alkazahy at the scene of the collision. Alkazahy smelled
                             - 408 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                      STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                       Cite as 314 Neb. 406

strongly of alcohol, admitted that he had consumed some
beers prior to the collision, and remarked that he was “going
to jail.” Alkazahy’s two passengers indicated that Alkazahy
was the driver and that the group had been drinking alco-
hol. Alkazahy submitted to a preliminary breath test, which
indicated that .129 grams of alcohol were present per 210
liters of his breath. Johnson arrested Alkazahy for DUI. Due
to the nature of the collision, Johnson did not ask Alkazahy
to perform standard field sobriety tests. Instead, Johnson
brought Alkazahy to a detoxification center in order to admin-
ister a chemical breath test. Following a 17-minute observa-
tion period, Johnson administered a breath test to Alkazahy
using a “DataMaster” instrument with the serial number
300401 (DataMaster 300401). The DataMaster test indicated
that .118 grams of alcohol were present per 210 liters of
Alkazahy’s breath.
   On December 11, 2020, Alkazahy was charged with DUI
causing serious bodily injury, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 60-6,198 (Reissue 2021), a Class IIIA felony. Alkazahy
waived his rights to a jury trial and a speedy trial.

                     Motion to Suppress
   Before trial, Alkazahy moved to suppress the results of the
DataMaster test. Alkazahy argued that the DataMaster results
were inadmissible because DataMaster 300401’s conformance
testing was noncompliant with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,201
(Reissue 2021) and 177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 008
(2016). The court held a hearing on Alkazahy’s motion, at
which time the following relevant evidence was adduced or
stipulated with regard to the DataMaster test.
   Section 60-6,201 provides that to be considered valid, a
chemical breath test must be performed “according to meth-
ods approved by” the Nebraska Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) and, generally, “by an individual
possessing a valid permit.” Johnson had a valid permit and
was qualified to administer the test. Additionally, applicable
                                  - 409 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                           STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 406

DHHS regulations provide that a DataMaster is an approved
evidentiary breath testing device. 1
   DataMasters use infrared absorption to analyze breath sam-
ples. They are subject to conformance testing. Specifically,
177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 001.15 (2016), provides
that a “[m]aintenance officer” will perform “calibration veri-
fication” of evidentiary breath testing devices every 40 days.
DataMasters can be tested using the target value of a premixed,
certified mixture of alcohol and nitrogen (dry gas standards).
Further, 177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 008.02 (2016), pro-
vides that all calibration equipment that has been approved by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
and published on its conforming products list of calibrating
units for breath alcohol testers (Conforming Products List)
is approved for calibration and verification of calibration of
breath testing devices.
   Investigator Grant Powell of the Lincoln Police Department
is a maintenance officer for DataMaster 300401. Powell
completed a certificate of accuracy on April 24, 2018, for
DataMaster 300401. Powell used dry gas standards to test
DataMaster 300401 on April 24, 2018, and May 13 and June
17, 2020. The second and third dates were, respectively, shortly
before and after Alkazahy’s breath was tested. DataMaster
300401 passed those tests; the calibration verifications on
those dates produced a result within plus or minus 5 percent
of the target value. However, the dry gas standards that Powell
used (108 liters per 208 parts per million of ethanol and 108
liters per 390 parts per million of ethanol) do not appear on
the NHTSA’s 2012 Conforming Products List. The 2012 list is
the most recent available.
   The dry gas standards at issue were manufactured and cer-
tified by “Airgas” and sold to the Lincoln Police Department
by “Intoximeters.” Exhibit 11 is a letter from the NHTSA
to Airgas, dated September 22, 2015, confirming that the
1
    See 177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 008.01A (2016).
                                    - 410 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                             STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 406

dry gas standards at issue meet the model specifications for
calibrating units. The letter indicates that the calibrating units
would be included in the next update of the Conforming
Products List. Exhibit 12 is a similar letter from the NHTSA
to Intoximeters.
   The district court focused its analysis on whether the
DataMaster test was properly conducted under the methods
stated by DHHS. 2 The district court observed that while the
language of title 177 does not restrict DHHS from approving
calibration equipment that is not on the Conforming Products
List, the State presented no evidence that DHHS had done
so. Thus, the district court identified as a dispositive issue
whether the failure to use dry gas standards listed on the
published list relates to a “method” used or a “technique.” 3
The court concluded that the use of dry gas standards not pub-
lished on the NHTSA’s Conforming Products List was merely
a deficiency in technique and did not preclude the court from
admitting the test results. Thus, the court overruled Alkazahy’s
motion to suppress.

                        Bench Trial
   On March 24, 2022, a bench trial was held. The State
offered, and the court received, 25 exhibits. Alkazahy jointly
offered 13 of those exhibits. Alkazahy preserved the issue
raised in his motion to suppress by timely objecting to the
results of the DataMaster test and the documents offered in
support of the DataMaster test. Johnson testified on behalf
of the State. No other witnesses testified. Following trial, the
court concluded that the State had met its burden of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, warranting conviction.
2
    See State v. Jasa, 297 Neb. 822, 901 N.W.2d 315 (2017).
3
    See State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. 96, 106, 784 N.W.2d 873, 883 (2010)
    (“[a]ny deficiencies in the techniques used to test the blood alcohol level
    in DUI cases generally are of no foundational consequence, but only affect
    the weight and credibility of the testimony”).
                              - 411 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 406

                            Sentence
   At Alkazahy’s sentencing hearing, the State emphasized
“red flags” in Alkazahy’s presentence investigation report
and recommended the court impose a term of incarceration.
Alkazahy requested probation with a “lengthy” period of
supervision, consideration of house arrest, and a minimum
period of revocation as to his license. Alkazahy stated that he
had “changed [his] ways” and was “willing to keep doing bet-
ter” and “be a good citizen.”
   The court explained that it had reviewed Alkazahy’s presen-
tence investigation report, as well as all additional information
that had been submitted. The court explained that it had con-
sidered the comments of counsel and of Alkazahy. The court
expressly stated that it had considered the relevant statutory
factors, such as Alkazahy’s age, education level, background,
criminal record, and prior success on probation. The court
emphasized that Alkazahy was a high recidivism risk and
posed a substantial risk to the public. In its written order of
sentence, the court explained:
         Having regard for the nature and circumstances of
      the crimes and the history, character and condition
      of [Alkazahy], the court finds that imprisonment of
      [Alkazahy] is necessary for the protection of the public
      because the risk is substantial that, during any period
      of probation, [he] would engage in additional criminal
      conduct and because a lesser sentence would depreciate
      the seriousness of [his] crimes and promote disrespect for
      the law.
   The court sentenced Alkazahy to 18 months of imprison-
ment followed by 18 months of post-release supervision. The
court also revoked Alkazahy’s license for a period of 8 years.
                ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
   Alkazahy assigns that the district court erred by overruling
his motion to suppress the results of the DataMaster test and
by imposing an excessive sentence.
                                   - 412 -
            Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                     314 Nebraska Reports
                           STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                            Cite as 314 Neb. 406

                  STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1] The meaning and interpretation of statutes and regula-
tions are questions of law which an appellate court resolves
independently of the lower court’s conclusion. 4
   [2,3] A sentence imposed within the statutory limits will not
be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion
by the trial court. 5 An abuse of discretion takes place when
the sentencing court’s reasons or rulings are clearly unten-
able and unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a
just result. 6
                          ANALYSIS
                     Motion to Suppress
   [4] The four foundational elements which the State must
establish for the admissibility of a breath test in a DUI pros-
ecution are as follows: (1) that the testing device was work-
ing properly at the time of the testing, (2) that the person
administering the test was qualified and held a valid permit,
(3) that the test was properly conducted under the methods
stated by DHHS, and (4) that all other statutes were satisfied. 7
Alkazahy does not dispute that the testing device was work-
ing properly at the time of the test, that the person adminis-
tering the test was qualified and held a valid permit, and that
other statutes were satisfied. Instead, Alkazahy contends that
the test was not properly conducted under the methods stated
by DHHS.
   To be considered valid, tests of blood, breath, or urine made
under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,197 (Reissue 2021) or tests of
blood or breath made under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,211.02
(Reissue 2021) shall be performed according to methods
4
    Jasa, supra note 2.
5
    State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019).
6
    State v. Starks, 308 Neb. 527, 955 N.W.2d 313 (2021).
7
    Jasa, supra note 2.
                                   - 413 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 406

approved by DHHS. 8 DHHS may approve satisfactory tech-
niques or methods to perform such tests. 9 The parties agree that
chapter 1 of title 177 hosts the governing DHHS regulations in
this case.
   Under title 177, a method is defined as “the name of the
principle of analysis” and “may be a laboratory method.” 10
A laboratory method is a chemical analysis using laboratory
procedures and instrumentation. 11 The failure to perform a test
using the prescribed methods makes the test result inadmis-
sible. 12 A technique is defined as a “set of written instruc-
tions which describe the procedure, equipment, and equipment
prevent[at]ive maintenance necessary to obtain an accurate
alcohol content test result.” 13 Any deficiencies in techniques
used to test the breath or blood alcohol level in DUI cases gen-
erally are of no foundational consequence, but only affect the
weight and credibility of the testimony. 14
   Title 177 authorizes Class B permit holders to perform a
chemical test to analyze a subject’s breath for alcohol content
using an approved method. 15 According to 177 Neb. Admin.
Code § 008.01C (2016), “[i]nfrared absorption analysis using
the Model DataMaster . . . and all instruments under the
DataMaster [name]” is an approved method. Section 008.01A
of title 177 specifically lists the DataMaster as an approved
evidentiary breath testing method and instrument to be used
by law enforcement. Prior to being placed into service, a
DataMaster shall have its calibration checked with a “wet
 8
     See § 60-6,201(3).
 9
     Jasa, supra note 2.
10
     177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 001.16 (2016).
11
     177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 001.14 (2016).
12
     See State v. Kubik, 235 Neb. 612, 456 N.W.2d 487 (1990).
13
     See 177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 001.21 (2016).
14
     Prescott, supra note 3.
15
     See 177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 001.07B (2016).
                                   - 414 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 406

bath simulator solution” or a “dry gas standard.” 16 Section
008.02 provides that all calibration equipment that appears
on the NHTSA’s Conforming Products List is approved for
“calibration and verification of calibration” of breath test-
ing devices.
   Notably, there is no dispute that Alkazahy’s breath alco-
hol content was measured via infrared absorption analysis
using a DataMaster and that the dry gas standards used in the
DataMaster’s conformance test met the NHTSA requirements.
Relevant to this appeal, there is also no dispute that the dry
gas standards did not appear on the most recent publication of
the NHTSA’s Conforming Products List. As a result, Alkazahy
argues a deficiency as to the method of his breath test on the
basis that “the failure to use a NHTSA approved standard”
for calibration and verification of calibration directly relates
to the actual scientific process in which breath tests are deter-
mined. 17 For this argument, Alkazahy relies on the Nebraska
Court of Appeals’ opinion in State v. Rodriguez. 18 His reliance
is misplaced.
   In Rodriguez, the defendant was convicted of DUI. 19 On
appeal, the defendant argued that the district court had erred
in receiving exhibits related to his chemical breath test,
including a completed “Attachment 15.” 20 Specifically, the
defendant argued that the Attachment 15 was noncompli-
ant with the methods prescribed by DHHS under title 177. 21
Observing that the Attachment 15 was deficient in technique,
the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument that
the evidence was inadmissible. 22 The court explained that
16
     177 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 008.03A (2016).
17
     Brief for appellant at 12.
18
     State v. Rodriguez, 18 Neb. App. 104, 774 N.W.2d 775 (2009).
19
     Id.
20
     Id. at 110, 774 N.W.2d at 780.
21
     Id.
22
     Id.
                                      - 415 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                             STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 406

deficiencies in the techniques used to test the blood or breath
alcohol level in DUI cases generally are of no founda-
tional consequence. 23
   The court concluded: “[T]he checklist is a technique because
the Nebraska Administrative Code treats it as such and it is
unrelated to the actual scientific process in which breath test
results are determined.” 24 In doing so, the court explained,
“Attachment 15 is not the scientific process in which the breath
test sample is actually analyzed”; i.e., it is not a “‘principle of
analysis’” or “‘method.’” 25 Attachment 15, the court explained,
merely provides the officer with “‘written instructions’” which
describe the necessary “‘procedure.’” 26 Alkazahy employs
the language referring to “scientific process” to indicate that
because the calibration and verification of calibration of a
DataMaster device potentially “relates” to the accuracy of test
results, use of unapproved dry gas standards amounts to a defi-
ciency in the method used. 27
   Here, however, the evidence is clear that the dry gas stan-
dards used to check the calibration of DataMaster 300401 had
been evaluated by the NHTSA and found to “meet the model
specifications for calibrating units” for breath alcohol tests.
In actuality, Alkazahy’s complaint is that the dry gas stan-
dards were not listed on the NHTSA’s Conforming Products
List, which had not been updated in over a decade. The use
of dry gas standards which met the NHTSA’s requirements
but which had not yet been published on the Conforming
Products List can hardly be considered a defect in the sci-
entific process. As such, the deficiency complained of by
23
     Rodriguez, supra note 18.
24
     Id. at 110, 774 N.W.2d at 780.
25
     Id.
26
     Id.
27
     Brief for appellant at 9.
                                    - 416 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                             STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                              Cite as 314 Neb. 406

Alkazahy has no relationship with whether an approved prin-
ciple of analysis was employed. Our prior analysis in State v.
Miller 28 is instructive.
   In Miller, the defendant appealed his motor vehicle homi-
cide conviction and sentence. 29 Specifically, the defendant
argued that the district court erred by admitting into evidence
the results of a blood test which violated applicable regula-
tions. 30 We observed that the applicable regulations required
that blood samples be collected in a container having an
anticoagulant-preservative in it and that it was undisputed
that the defendant’s blood was collected in a tube which
did not contain such a substance. 31 We observed further that
applicable regulations approved “direct injection into a gas
chromatograph” as a “method” for measuring blood alcohol
and that the evidence did not show noncompliance with the
same. 32 We concluded that the requirements for the container
in which the defendant’s blood was collected had no bearing
on the “method” used to test his blood. 33 Thus, we concluded
that the district court did not err in admitting the results
into evidence. 34
   Just as a DHHS-approved method was used to test the
defendant’s blood alcohol content in Miller, a DHHS-approved
method was used to test Alkazahy’s breath alcohol con-
tent in this case. In Miller, the method was direct injection
into a gas chromatograph; here, the method was infrared
28
     State v. Miller, 213 Neb. 274, 328 N.W.2d 769 (1983), modified, State v.
     West, 217 Neb. 389, 350 N.W.2d 512 (1984).
29
     Id.
30
     Id.
31
     Id.
32
     Id. at 277, 328 N.W.2d at 771.
33
     Id. Cf. State v. Fox, 177 Neb. 238, 128 N.W.2d 576 (1964) (effect of
     improper amount of anticoagulant on test results goes only to weight and
     credibility of evidence).
34
     Id.
                                    - 417 -
             Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                      314 Nebraska Reports
                            STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                             Cite as 314 Neb. 406

absorption analysis. Additionally, the evidence indicates that
the DataMaster was properly calibrated at the time of the testing
of Alkazahy’s breath. As such, the State has met its foundational
requirement with regard to the DataMaster test and the district
court did not err in admitting its results.

                            Sentence
   [5-7] Alkazahy additionally argues that his sentence is exces-
sive. Alkazahy’s sentence was within the applicable statutory
range. Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits
is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must
determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion in
considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any
applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be
imposed. 35 In determining a sentence to be imposed, relevant
factors customarily considered and applied are 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 amount of vio-
lence involved in the commission of the crime. 36 The appropri-
ateness 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 sur-
rounding the defendant’s life. 37
   Alkazahy argues that the district court abused its discre-
tion by denying him probation based on the seriousness of
the offense only. He argues that it is an abuse of discre-
tion to “focus solely on the offense while essentially ignor-
ing the offender himself.” 38 As mitigating factors, Alkazahy
35
     State v. Becker, 304 Neb. 693, 936 N.W.2d 505 (2019).
36
     Briggs, supra note 5.
37
     Id.
38
     Brief for appellant at 14.
                              - 418 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  314 Nebraska Reports
                       STATE V. ALKAZAHY
                        Cite as 314 Neb. 406

emphasizes that he is generally nonviolent and that he did not
commit any additional crimes while his case was pending.
   Nothing in the record indicates that the district court did
not consider the mitigating factors that Alkazahy emphasizes.
On the contrary, the district court specified that it had consid-
ered and applied all the relevant statutory factors, including
Alkazahy’s background and criminal history and the amount
of violence involved in the commission of the crime. As
such, we are unable to find that the district court abused its
discretion in sentencing Alkazahy to a period of 18 months
of imprisonment.
                        CONCLUSION
  The district court did not err in either assigned respect—
accordingly, we affirm.
                                                  Affirmed.