Court Opinion

ID: 9707957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:25:54.161584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:40.573298
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The defendant here was convicted of robbery. He took a little over $100 in cash and checks from the cash register and shoved or knocked the cashier to her knees when she shut the cash register drawer on his fingers. There is no evidence that he displayed or used a weapon.
Following the adoption of the majority opinion, the court directed that the presentence investigation re*634ports be forwarded, and they have now been examined. The defendant is a black male born February 14, 1936, a native of Kansas City, Missouri. His felony criminal record begins in 1955 when he pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary and was sentenced to 2 years in the Missouri State Reformatory. In 1957, he was convicted of robbery, first degree, and sentenced to 5 years in the Missouri State Penitentiary. He was discharged in April of 1960 and apparently moved to Omaha, Nebraska, in June of 1960. In 1961, he was convicted of armed robbery in Douglas County, Nebraska, and sentenced to 7 years in the penitentiary. This was an armed robbery with a shotgun in which he took over $60 in cash from a service station attendant and also stole the attendant’s gun. In October 1966, he was convicted of burglary, again in Douglas County, Nebraska, and sentenced to 6 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. He was paroled June 18, 1969, and was convicted of the robbery in this case on November 4, 3 970. In this case, the sentence was solely on a robbery count. An habitual criminal charge was dismissed after the conviction on the robbery count and prior to the sentence here. The sentence was for a minimum term of 24 years 6 months to a maximum term of 35 years.
Section 29-2308, R. R. S. 1943, authorizes this court to reduce the sentence against an accused if it is excessive and enjoins on us the duty to render such sentence against the accused as, in our opinion, may be warranted by the evidence. Comparatively recently we have often repeated the holding that a sentence imposed by the trial court within the prescribed statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal unless there appears to be an abuse of discretion. That rule is repeated in the majority opinion here.
If the facts here do not warrant the intervention of this court in reducing the sentence, it is quite clear that the intended scope of section 29-2308, R. R. S. 1943, is being drastically restricted. While it may be true that *635this court will add considerably to its burden by undertaking to consider excessiveness of sentences, and the inherent difficulties in attempting to achieve any sort of uniformity are obvious, nevertheless, the demands of justice require at least a reasonable effort to deal with the problem of excessive sentences.
Admittedly, the defendant’s record is bad. He is clearly not entitled to any leniency whatever. Nevertheless, he ought to be entitled to even-handed justice. It seems clear that the sentence given is excessive under the circumstances. The evidence here warrants a sentence of 10 years at most. Any sentence in excess of that amount constituted an abuse of discretion.