Court Opinion

ID: 9692668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:00:00.497236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.886015
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J.,
dissenting.
In State v. Oliver, 230 Neb. 864, 434 N.W.2d 293 (1989), I dissented and pointed up the deficiencies in Nebraska’s criminal procedure, which, under existing statutes and decisions of this court, does not allow a criminal defendant to challenge a prior plea-based conviction obtained in violation or denial of a right constitutionally guaranteed to the defendant, including the rights specifically mentioned in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969), namely, the rights to trial by jury, to remain silent, and to confront accusers. A procedure which a state “deems necessary” to challenge a prior plea-based conviction may be vastly different from a procedure which comports with constitutional guarantees, a dramatically crucial difference which actually exists in Nebraska’s procedure to challenge the constitutional validity of a prior plea-based conviction. The absence of an adequate procedure for an effectual challenge to a prior plea-based conviction which is constitutionally invalid offends due process required by the Nebraska and U.S. Constitutions. Since there has been no change, through the Legislature or this court, after Oliver to provide a criminal defendant with a means to challenge a prior conviction unconstitutionally obtained, “there is no new thing under the sun, ” and, hence, with no new twist to Oliver, I renew my dissent to the denial of fundamental fairness and due process.