Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Sherry A. Dale’s probationary sentence for felony animal neglect. The court held that the sentencing court was not required to advise Dale during the plea hearing that reimbursement of animal-care expenses could be imposed as a condition of probation. Dale forfeited her remaining challenges by failing to object to the reimbursement condition at sentencing, and the court found no plain error.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court was required to advise Dale during the plea hearing that reimbursement of Humane Society expenses could be imposed as a condition of probation.
- Whether Dale preserved challenges based on the absence of expense documentation in the presentence investigation report, the failure to orally pronounce the reimbursement condition, the failure to hold a hearing to determine the reimbursement amount, and the failure to specify a dollar amount.
- Whether the district court committed plain error by imposing the reimbursement condition without specifying an amount.
Holdings
- A sentencing court need not advise a defendant contemplating a guilty or no contest plea that reimbursement of animal-related agency expenses may be imposed as a condition of probation, so long as the court advises the defendant of any mandatory minimum sentence and the full range of possible penalties.
- Dale forfeited her challenges to the lack of expense documentation, the failure to orally pronounce reimbursement, the failure to hold a reimbursement hearing, and the failure to specify an amount because she did not object when given an opportunity to do so and affirmatively asked the court to adopt the probation recommendation.
- The district court did not commit plain error by failing to specify a reimbursement amount or by omitting a specific dollar amount from the probation order.
Key quotations
“There is no requirement in this state that the sentencing court must inform a defendant contemplating a guilty plea or a plea of no contest of the possibility of probation, as long as the court advises him or her of the existence, if any, of a mandatory minimum sentence as well as the full range of possible penalties.” (867)
“Usually, when a party fails to object to an alleged error by the trial court, we will, at most, review the issue for plain error.” (869)
Factual background
Animal control officers found Dale's dog emaciated, lethargic, severely wounded, and unable to stand. The Nebraska Humane Society euthanized the dog and performed a necropsy. Dale pleaded no contest to felony animal neglect/abandonment with serious injury, and the district court imposed probation conditioned in part on payment of all Humane Society fees for pickup, removal, euthanasia, and necropsy, without stating a dollar amount. Dale's counsel discussed the recommendation and Dale's limited income but asked the court to adopt the probation recommendation and did not object to the condition.
Procedural history
Dale pleaded no contest to felony animal neglect/abandonment with serious injury. The district court accepted the plea, imposed two years of probation and related conditions, including reimbursement of Humane Society fees without specifying an amount, and entered a written probation order. Dale appealed, challenging the reimbursement condition on five grounds.