Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Wal

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 22, 2019

State of Nebraska, appellee,
v.
Angok B. Wal, appellant.

         1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.

         2.__:__. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.

         3. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. Components of a series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.

         4. Sentences: Probation and Parole. Under the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016), a trial court has only one option upon revoking a term of post-release supervision for noncompliance: imposing a term of incarceration up to the remaining period of post-release supervision.

         5. __: __. When a court has revoked post-release supervision, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is governed exclusively by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016) and does not depend on the maximum sentence of initial imprisonment authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016).

         6. Sentences: Probation and Parole: Appeal and Error. Upon revocation of post-release supervision, a sentencing court has discretion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2268(2) (Reissue 2016) to impose any term of imprisonment up to the remaining period of post-release supervision, and an appellate court will not disturb the court's decision absent an abuse of discretion.

          [302 Neb. 309] Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefanie A. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.

          Jeffrey S. Leuschen and Liam K. Meehan, of Schirber & Wagner, L.L.P., for appellant.

          Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph for appellee.

          Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

          STACY, J.

         Angok B. Wal pled guilty to a Class IV felony and was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months' post-release supervision. Shortly after the period of post-release supervision began, the State moved to revoke, alleging Wal had violated several conditions. Wal admitted the violations, after which the district court revoked the post-release supervision and imposed a term of 8 months' imprisonment in the county jail.

         Wal appeals. He argues that because he has completed a 20-month prison sentence, the district court's imposition of an 8-month jail term upon revoking post-release supervision resulted in imprisonment for a total of 28 months for a Class IV felony, and therefore exceeded the maximum sentence of 24 months' imprisonment authorized by law.[1] Wal's position fundamentally misconstrues the applicable statutory ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.