From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Linn

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Nov 17, 1995
539 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1995)

Summary

In Linn, which involved a sentence enhancement for driving under the influence of alcohol, the State sought to prove two prior convictions by evidence consisting of copies of the complaints and certified copies of the county court's checklist showing that the defendant appeared with counsel, was advised of her rights, and entered a plea of guilty.

Summary of this case from State v. Thomas

Opinion

No. S-94-290.

Filed November 17, 1995.

1. Prior Convictions: Appeal and Error. On a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court, viewing and construing the evidence most favorably to the State, will not set aside a finding of a previous conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancement supported by relevant evidence.

2. Prior Convictions: Proof. In a proceeding to enhance a sentence because of prior convictions, the State has the burden to prove such prior convictions.

3. Prior Convictions: Judgments: Proof. In order to establish evidence's sufficient probative force to prove an earlier conviction for the purpose of sentence enhancement, the evidence must, with some trustworthiness, reflect a court's act of rendering judgment.

4. Prior Convictions: Records: Proof. There is no requirement that the State prove a prior conviction by a transcript of the judgment if the defendant admits that he was, in fact, convicted as alleged in the complaint.

5. Prior Convictions: Right to Counsel: Waiver. In accepting a waiver of counsel, the trial court must address the defendant and ascertain that the defendant was represented by counsel at the time of the prior conviction or waived his right to counsel.

6. Judicial Notice. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed.

7. Constitutional Law: Due Process: Judicial Notice. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a defendant be informed when a court judicially notices facts.

8. Prior Convictions: Appeal and Error. When evidence lacks sufficient probative force as a matter of law, an appellate court may set aside a finding of a previous conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancement as unsupported by the evidence.

Petition for further review from the Nebraska Court of Appeals, Sievers, Chief Judge, and Hannon and Mues, Judges, on appeal thereto from the District Court for Hall County, Joseph D. Martin, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Hall County, Graten D. Beavers, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and cause remanded.

Thomas J. Gaul, Deputy Hall County Public Defender, for appellant.

Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and Marilyn B. Hutchinson for appellee.

White, C.J., Caporale, Fahrnbruch, Lanphier, Wright, and Connolly, JJ., and Hickman, D.J., Retired.


Dixie A. Linn claims that the Hall County Court erred in sentencing her for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), third offense, because the State's evidence was insufficient to prove an earlier DUI conviction.

Specifically, Linn's sole contention is that one of the records of an alleged prior conviction offered by the State in support of sentence enhancement was insufficient for such purposes because it was not signed by a judge.

We agree with Linn; we vacate her sentence for third-offense DUI and remand the cause to the district court for Hall County with direction to remand the cause to the Hall County Court for further proceedings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court, viewing and construing the evidence most favorably to the State, will not set aside a finding of a previous conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancement supported by relevant evidence. See, State v. Marks, ante p. 592, 537 N.W.2d 339 (1995); State v. Cisneros, ante p. 372, 535 N.W.2d 703 (1995); State v. Derry, ante p. 260, 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995).

FACTS

Linn, with counsel present, pled guilty to DUI in Hall County Court on December 2, 1993. At an enhancement hearing held the same day, the State entered into evidence two exhibits purporting to show two earlier convictions for DUI.

Exhibit 1 contains a copy of a complaint for DUI filed against Linn in Hall County Court on June 2, 1992. The third and fourth pages consist of a checklist labeled "Journal Entry." The checklist reflects that Linn appeared with counsel, was apprised of her constitutional rights, and entered a plea of guilty on October 2, 1992. The checklist also shows that Linn stipulated that the June 2 offense was her second DUI offense.

The checklist is signed by the judge, stamped on its face with the seal of the court, and, on the reverse, bears the seal of the Hall County Court clerk attesting that it is a true copy of an original document on file with the court. Linn did not object to exhibit 1's admission into evidence and assigns no error regarding that exhibit.

Exhibit 2 contains a copy of a complaint for DUI filed against Linn in Hall County Court on December 10, 1991. The third and fourth pages also consist of a two-page checklist titled "Journal Entry." This checklist reflects that Linn appeared with counsel, was apprised of her constitutional rights, and entered a guilty plea to DUI.

In contrast to exhibit 1, exhibit 2 fails to reflect that the "Journal Entry" was signed by a judge. The county clerk certified that exhibit 2 is "a true copy of the original on file with this court." The court's seal is affixed to that certification. Exhibit 2 was received into evidence without objection. After receiving it into evidence, the court noted the lack of a judge's signature on the "Journal Entry."

The court then found Linn guilty of DUI, third offense, and sentenced her to 3 months in jail, fined her $500, assessed costs to her, and revoked her motor vehicle operator's license for a period of 15 years.

Linn appealed to the district court for Hall County, claiming that the State's evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for third-offense DUI because exhibit 2 lacked the signature of a judge. The district court affirmed the judgment of the county court.

Linn appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that because the journal entry contained in exhibit 2 was not signed by a judge, the district court erred in not finding that the State failed to prove a valid conviction for sentence enhancement. The Court of Appeals' panel, in a two to one decision, affirmed the district court's holding. State v. Linn, 3 Neb. App. 332, 526 N.W.2d 683 (1995). After Linn's timely petition, we granted further review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Restated, Linn's sole contention is that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that a sentence for DUI may be enhanced by an earlier conviction where the evidence of the conviction fails to show that a judge signed the judgment or that the judgment was properly filed in the convicting court.

ANALYSIS

The question before us is whether the "Journal Entry," contained in exhibit 2 is sufficient evidence to prove a conviction in order to enhance a sentence for DUI.

In a proceeding to enhance a sentence because of prior convictions, the State has the burden to prove such prior convictions. State v. Ristau, 245 Neb. 52, 511 N.W.2d 83 (1994); State v. Nowicki, 239 Neb. 130, 474 N.W.2d 478 (1991).

In order to establish evidence's sufficient probative force to prove an earlier conviction for the purpose of sentence enhancement, the evidence must, with some trustworthiness, reflect a court's act of rendering judgment. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (Reissue 1989). Exhibit 1 does this, and exhibit 2 does not.

Exhibit 1 contains a journal entry signed by the judge, stamped on its face with the court's seal, and certified by the court clerk that it is a true copy of an original document on file with the court. The judge's signature and the court's seal reflect the court's act of rendering judgment, and the document's origin is supported by the court clerk's certification that it is a true copy of an original document on file with the court. See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2729(3) (Reissue 1989); § 27-901.

In contrast, exhibit 2 is not signed by a judge. It bears only the certification of the Hall County Court clerk that it is a true copy of a document found in the court's files. The court clerk's certification stamp attesting to the accuracy of the copy provided is of little value in weighing the document's probative weight when its contents are not supported by a judge's signature. As such, we agree with Linn that exhibit 2 fails to reflect the judicial act of rendering judgment and is insufficient to prove an earlier conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancement.

We note, however, that exhibit 1 shows that Linn stipulated at her October 2, 1992, trial that the June 2 DUI offense was her second DUI offense. There is no requirement that the State prove a prior conviction by a transcript of the judgment if the defendant admits that he or she was, in fact, convicted as alleged in the complaint. Ristau, supra; State v. Smyth, 217 Neb. 153, 347 N.W.2d 859 (1984). In Linn's case, there is no evidence in the record that the trial court asked Linn if she had, or waived, counsel at the conviction proceedings to which she stipulated. In accepting a waiver of counsel, the trial court must address the defendant and ascertain that the defendant was represented by counsel at the time of the prior conviction or waived his right to counsel. See, Ristau, supra; Smyth, supra; State v. Ziemba, 216 Neb. 612, 346 N.W.2d 208 (1984).

There is no evidence in the record that the court took judicial notice of the fact that Linn had stipulated at her October 2, 1992, trial that the June 2, 1992, offense was her second DUI offense. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-201(5) (Reissue 1989) states in part that "[a] party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed." In discussing Fed. R. Evid. 201, which is identical to Nebraska's § 27-201, Wright and Graham state that implicit in subsection (e) of the federal rule is a requirement that the judge "notify the parties that he is taking judicial notice of an adjudicative fact." 21 Charles A. Wright Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5107 at 507 (1977). See § 27-201(5). Moreover, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a defendant be informed when a court judicially notices facts. See Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 82 S. Ct. 248, 7 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1961).

Finally, there is no evidence in the record that the trial judge used Linn's stipulation made at her October 2, 1992, trial to determine that Linn's latest DUI offense was her third. The record plainly shows that the trial court treated exhibits 1 and 2 as evidence of two separate earlier DUI convictions.

Viewing and construing the evidence most favorably to the State, an appellate court will not set aside a finding of an earlier conviction used for sentence enhancement which is supported by relevant and competent evidence. See, State v. Marks, ante p. 592, 537 N.W.2d 339 (1995); State v. Cisneros, ante p. 372, 535 N.W.2d 703 (1995); State v. Derry, ante p. 260, 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995). When evidence lacks sufficient probative force as a matter of law, an appellate court may set aside a finding of a previous conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancement as unsupported by the evidence. See State v. One 1985 Mercedes 190D Automobile, 247 Neb. 335, 526 N.W.2d 657 (1995).

The State offered no other evidence of Linn's purported 1991 conviction for DUI. Even when viewing and construing exhibit 2 most favorably to the State, Linn's sentence for DUI, third offense, is unsupported by the evidence. We vacate her sentence for third-offense DUI and remand the cause to the district court for Hall County with direction to remand the cause to the Hall County Court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Linn

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Nov 17, 1995
539 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1995)

In Linn, which involved a sentence enhancement for driving under the influence of alcohol, the State sought to prove two prior convictions by evidence consisting of copies of the complaints and certified copies of the county court's checklist showing that the defendant appeared with counsel, was advised of her rights, and entered a plea of guilty.

Summary of this case from State v. Thomas

In Linn, the Supreme Court found that an unsigned judgment of a prior driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) conviction could not be used for sentence enhancement for a third-offense DUI conviction, despite a stipulation in the record of another DUI conviction that it had been the defendant's second DUI offense.

Summary of this case from State v. Taylor

In State v. Linn, 248 Neb. 809, 812, 539 N.W.2d 435, 438 (1995), the Nebraska Supreme Court stated: "In order to establish evidence's sufficient probative force to prove an earlier conviction for the purpose of sentence enhancement, the evidence must, with some trustworthiness, reflect a court's act of rendering judgment."

Summary of this case from State v. Taylor

In Linn, there was an unsigned journal entry, a document customarily prepared by or for a judge and bearing his or her signature.

Summary of this case from State v. Fletcher
Case details for

State v. Linn

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. DIXIE A. LINN, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Nebraska

Date published: Nov 17, 1995

Citations

539 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1995)
539 N.W.2d 435

Citing Cases

State v. Fletcher

Brief for appellant at 14. Fletcher concludes that Gooch was ineffective because "reasonably schooled members…

State v. Thomas

State v. Addison, 197 Neb. 482, 487, 249 N.W.2d 746, 749 (1977), quoting State v. Micek, 193 Neb. 379, 227…