Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. In
an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the
district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and
its review is limited to an examination of the record for
error or abuse of discretion.
Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Both
the district court and a higher appellate court generally
review appeals from the county court for error appearing on
the record. When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on
the record, an appellate court's inquiry is whether the
decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent
evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor
unreasonable. But an appellate court independently reviews
questions of law in appeals from the county court.
Records: Appeal and Error. An appellant has
the responsibility to present a record that permits appellate
review of the issue assigned as error.
from the District Court for Burt County, John E. Samson,
Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Burt
County, C. Matthew Samuelson, Judge. Judgment of District
Jensen, pro se.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein
Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ., and Harder and
Noakes, District Judges.
Neb. 792] Cassel, J.
Jensen had been allowed to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) at
various times throughout the pendency of his criminal case,
which commenced in 2011. In 2016, he sought to have the
county "pay" or waive his probation fees and court
costs. The county court denied the request, and the district
court affirmed. Because Jensen did not present evidence as to
his financial condition at the time of the hearing on his
motion and the record is inadequate to show that the county
court erred in not waiving the court costs, we affirm the
district court's decision.
in County Court
2014, the county court convicted Jensen of certain crimes. It
imposed a jail sentence, ordered Jensen to pay $3, 000 in
fines and $39.85 in costs, sentenced him to 24 months'
probation, and ordered him to pay $600 in probation fees.
After Jensen's appeals were resolved and jurisdiction
returned to the county court, Jensen apparently filed a
motion on May 25, 2016, seeking payment of four items,
including probation fees and court costs. This motion is not
in our record, but it is referred to in a county court order.
December 20, 2016, and January 24, 2017, the county court
evidently held hearings. Our bill of exceptions does not
contain a verbatim transcription of those hearings; instead,
it includes exhibits offered at the December 2016 hearing.
According to a subsequent order of the county court, it
received the exhibits. Many of the exhibits were poverty
affidavits and filings to proceed IFP at various times during
the pendency of the case and appeals therefrom. The evidence
contained a July 2012 financial affidavit and order
permitting Jensen to proceed IFP and directing that costs not
already paid as of that date be paid by the county. It
contained a January 2013 affidavit of poverty and order
sustaining Jensen's motion to appeal IFP to [299 Neb.
793] this court. The evidence also contained an August 2014