Convicted Sex Offender: Proof. Under Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 29-4011(1) (Reissue 2016), the State must
prove that the defendant (1) is required to register under
the Sex Offender Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §
29-4001 et seq. (Reissue 2016), and (2) violated a section of
Convicted Sex Offender. Under Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B) (Reissue 2016), a trial
court must determine whether a defendant who has committed
one of the offenses listed therein is subject to the Sex
Offender Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001 et
seq. (Reissue 2016), during the proceedings on the underlying
conviction and sentence.
Judgments: Words and Phrases. A judgment is
an adjudication of all the matters that are essential to
support it, and every proposition assumed or decided by the
court leading up to the final conclusion and on which such
conclusion is based is as effectually passed upon as the
ultimate question which is finally resolved.
Criminal Law: Judgments: Sentences: Appeal and
Error. In a criminal case, the judgment from which
the appellant may appeal is the sentence.
Convicted Sex Offender: Appeal and Error.
Whether a defendant is subject to the Sex Offender
Registration Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4001 et seq.
(Reissue 2016), based on a guilty plea or conviction for an
offense that is not inherently sexual must be reviewed on
direct appeal from the underlying conviction and sentence.
Judgments: Collateral Attack. When a
judgment is attacked in a way other than by proceeding in the
original action to have it vacated, reversed, or modified, or
by a proceeding in equity to prevent its enforcement, the
attack is a collateral attack.
___. A judgment that is not void, even if erroneous, cannot
be collaterally attacked.
Neb. 888] 8. Convicted Sex Offender:
Collateral Attack: Appeal and Error. A challenge to
a determination that the Sex Offender Registration Act, Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 29-4001 et seq. (Reissue 2016), applies to
a defendant for a listed offense that is not inherently
sexual outside of a direct appeal from the underlying
conviction and sentence is an impermissible collateral
Courts: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Upon
further review from a judgment of the Nebraska Court of
Appeals, the Nebraska Supreme Court will not reverse a
judgment which it deems to be correct simply because its
reasoning differs from that employed by the Court of Appeals.
Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals,
Pirtle, Riedmann, and Arterburn, Judges, on appeal thereto
from the District Court for Lancaster County, Susan I.
Strong, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed.
D. Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Nathan J.
Sohriakoff for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Joe Meyer for
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.,
and Derr and Urbom, District Judges.
Lancaster County District Court convicted Antonio Y.
Ratumaimuri of violating the registration requirements of the
Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Before the Nebraska Court of
Appeals, Ratumaimuri assigned as error that there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Specifically, he argued the State had failed to prove he was
subject to SORA's requirements, because it failed to
present evidence that-during the proceedings for a previous
conviction and sentence- the county court for Lancaster
County had made a factual finding pursuant to §
Neb. 889] The Court of Appeals affirmed Ratumaimuri's
conviction on the sufficiency of the evidence. However,
rather than relying on the determination in the previous
proceedings-that Ratumaimuri was subject to SORA-alone, the
Court of Appeals concluded that determination was valid
because it was based on an implied factual finding pursuant
to § 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B).
further review, we hold that (1) a determination that a
defendant is subject to SORA must be reviewed on direct
appeal from the underlying conviction and sentence and (2)
such a determination is not subject to an impermissible
collateral attack in subsequent proceedings. Accordingly, the
Court of Appeals erred in analyzing whether the determination
in the previous proceedings was valid. While our reasoning
differs from that employed by the Court of Appeals, our
ultimate conclusion on the judgment is the same. Therefore,
November 2015, a police officer found Ratumaimuri sleeping in
a parking garage in Lincoln, Nebraska. The officer determined
Ratumaimuri was a registered sex offender but had not updated
his address since July 2015, when he was incarcerated.
Ratumaimuri admitted he had been transient since he was
released from prison, in September 2015, and was in violation
of his SORA requirements because he had not registered with
the Lancaster County Sheriff's Department. The officer
arrested Ratumaimuri for violating SORA by failing to update
his address or status.
offense that subjected Ratumaimuri to SORA's requirements
was a 2014 conviction for third degree assault. The State had
amended the charge from third degree sexual assault in
exchange for Ratumaimuri's agreeing to plead no contest.
The State informed Ratumaimuri, however, that the county
court could still determine he was subject to SORA, under the
plea bargain. At the plea hearing, the county court ruled
that Ratumaimuri was subject to SORA's requirements and
that he had committed a "sexual offense."
Ratumaimuri was provided with a "Notification of
Registration Responsibilities [299 Neb. 890] Under
[SORA]" form, which stated: "Your conviction or
guilty plea has caused you to be subject to [SORA]." At
the sentencing hearing, the county court questioned