Court Opinion

ID: 9679005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:38:11.609224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.602710
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
I concur in the dissent of Carter, J. There were two counts in the information filed against this defendant. *710An examination of the record now before the court reveals that the State was in position to adldiuce sufficient evidence of defendant’s guilt as to render his conviction on one, or both counts not only probable, but practically a foregone conclusion.
Under such circumstances, even the most experienced practitioners of criminal law generally concede that the wisest counsel they can give their clients is that of entering a plea of guilty and throwing themselves upon the mercy of the court. Such was the case here. One count of the information was dismissed and the defendant got off with a comparatively light sentence.
In accordance with the majority opinion, this case must be remanded and new trial granted. In all likelihood defendant will again be convicted and sentenced. He may well find himself in the same position as the defendant in the case of State v. King, 180 Neb. 631, 144 N. W. 2d 438, where following the second trial and conviction defendant found he would be confined for a longer period than he was subject to on his original sentence. The language contained therein is applicable here. One who secures a new trial by pursuit of a post conviction remedy may be doing himself more harm than good. For him the bright rainbow and the hopes engendered may turn out to be illusory with only a pot of fool’s gold at the end of the rainbow.
In view of this situation, the same criticism made against the original attorney who, in the exercise of his best judgment, succeeded in getting his client off with only a light sentence, may well be made of the second attorney who, after much effort, succeeds in getting the original judgment of conviction set aside, and upon a retrial not only sees his client again convicted but also facing a longer period of incarceration than he was subject to in the first instance.
In my judgment, neither criticism is justified.