State v. Becker

304 Neb. 693 (2019) · Nebraska Supreme Court · December 20, 2019 · No. No. S-19-008

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding Timothy L. Becker’s convictions and sentences for 21 misdemeanor violations of a protection order. The court held that the county court’s failure to announce in open court where the sentences would be served did not constitute plain error, and that Eighth Amendment proportionality review considers each consecutive sentence separately rather than cumulatively. The court also concluded that the individual 180-day sentences were within statutory limits and were not excessive or an abuse of discretion.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Miller-Lerman, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Funke, J.; Papik, J.; Freudenberg, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
December 20, 2019
Docket number
No. S-19-008
Procedural posture
Becker appealed his convictions and sentences from the Scotts Bluff County Court to the Scotts Bluff County District Court, which affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court's order affirming the county court.
Standard of review
In an appeal from county court, both the district court and a higher appellate court generally review for error appearing on the record. The inquiry is whether the decision conforms to law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Whether a sentence violates the Eighth Amendment is reviewed de novo as a question of law. A sentence within statutory limits is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Timothy L. Becker v. State of Nebraska
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingcruel and unusual punishmentappellate procedurestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal lawsentencingappellate procedureconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the county court's failure to announce in open court where Becker's sentences would be served rendered the sentences invalid or constituted plain error.
  2. Whether consecutive 180-day sentences for 21 misdemeanor protection-order violations were grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment when considered in the aggregate.
  3. Whether the county court abused its discretion by imposing excessive consecutive sentences.

Holdings

  1. The county court's failure to state during the sentencing hearing that the sentences would be served in the county jail was not plain error and did not invalidate the sentences.
  2. Under ordinary Eighth Amendment analysis, sentences for separate offenses are considered individually rather than cumulatively, and Becker's individual 180-day sentences were not grossly disproportionate.
  3. The county court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive 180-day sentences for the 21 misdemeanor convictions.

Key quotations

under ordinary Eighth Amendment analysis, each sentence is considered separately, not cumulatively, for purposes of determining whether it is cruel and unusual. (706)
The absence of an announcement indicating where the sentences were to be served did not affect Becker’s substantial right. (703)
Given the sheer volume of Becker’s convictions for violation of the protection order, and with due regard for additional uncharged violations, we do not believe the sentencing court abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive terms. (710)

Factual background

Becker pleaded no contest to 21 first-offense misdemeanor counts of violating the same protection order, with each count based on conduct occurring on a different date between May 3 and May 23, 2018. While incarcerated in the county jail, he made more than 300 calls to the protected victim's telephone number, over 150 of which were completed calls. The county court imposed 180 days in jail on each count consecutively, after considering Becker's criminal history, the nature of the offenses, public safety, punishment, the victim-impact statement, and Becker's lack of apparent responsibility for his conduct.

Procedural history

Becker pleaded no contest to 21 counts of first-offense violation of a protection order. The county court imposed consecutive 180-day county-jail sentences on each count, for an aggregate term of 3,780 days. The district court affirmed, rejecting Becker's claims that the sentences were invalid, grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, and excessive. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…