Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Michael E. Lane’s incest conviction but held that the district court plainly erred by failing to comply with mandatory sex-offender registration notification requirements. The court rejected Lane’s claim that incorrect advice about registration duties rendered his no contest plea involuntary, treating those duties as collateral consequences. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, while declining to reach the merits of Lane’s ineffective-assistance claims because the direct-appeal record was insufficient.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Lane was entitled to withdraw his no contest plea because the State and district court incorrectly advised him that he would not be subject to sex-offender registration.
- Whether the district court plainly erred by failing to comply with the mandatory Sex Offender Registration Act notification requirements at sentencing.
- Whether Lane's ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims could be resolved on direct appeal from the existing record.
Holdings
- A defendant's sex-offender-registration duties are a collateral, nonpunitive consequence of a sentence, and an incorrect or omitted advisement about those duties does not render a guilty or no contest plea involuntary or unintelligent or warrant withdrawal of the plea.
- The district court plainly erred by failing to comply with the mandatory notification requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4007 for a conviction requiring sex-offender registration; the sentence must therefore be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
- The ineffective-assistance claims could not be resolved on direct appeal because the record was insufficient to determine the specific conduct of trial counsel, deficient performance, or prejudice.
Key quotations
“Because the SORA registration duties at issue are not punitive, a trial court may inform a defendant of the duties imposed under SORA before accepting pleas of guilty or no contest, but is not required to do so, and a plea is not rendered involuntary or unintelligent because a defendant was not aware of his or her registration duties.” (175)
“We agree with the State that the district court plainly erred by failing to comply with SORA notification requirements.” (177)
“Affirmed in part, and in part vacated and remanded for resentencing.” (179)
Factual background
Lane entered a no contest plea to incest after the State charged him under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-703. During the plea hearing, the State and district court incorrectly stated that the offense did not require sex-offender registration, although incest is a registrable offense under the Sex Offender Registration Act. At sentencing, the district court imposed imprisonment and postrelease supervision but did not complete the Act's required written notification procedures. Lane's direct appeal also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but the record did not establish what advice counsel had provided concerning registration or the plea-related waiver of appellate rights.
Procedural history
After the denial of his motion to suppress, Lane entered a no contest plea under a plea agreement to incest, a Class III felony. The Douglas County District Court accepted the plea, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to four to four years' imprisonment, credit for 11 days served, and two years' postrelease supervision. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to comply with mandatory Sex Offender Registration Act notification requirements; it did not reach the merits of the ineffective-assistance claims because the direct-appeal record was insufficient.
Remand instructions
Vacate Lane's sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing in compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4007. The conviction is affirmed.