State v. Canaday, 307 Neb. 407

Clint C. Canaday was charged in Dawes County with multiple felonies arising from abuse and sexual assaults of his girlfriend’s children; two informations were later consolidated into plea negotiations.
Under a written plea agreement Canaday pleaded no contest to amended charges: (1) intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and child abuse (Case 1), and (2) first‑degree sexual assault of a child (Case 2); several counts and a habitual offender allegation were dismissed.
At the plea hearing the court advised Canaday of the charges, potential penalties, that sentences could be concurrent or consecutive, and that he “can be ordered to comply with” the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA); Canaday stated he understood.
At sentencing Canaday (through counsel) orally moved to withdraw his plea, asserting he did not understand he would have to register under SORA and that he is illiterate and therefore did not understand the SORA advisement form. He offered no testimony or exhibits.
The district court denied the motion, sentenced Canaday to consecutive terms (20–30 years; 2–2 years; 50 years–life), ordered SORA compliance, and Canaday appealed, challenging denial of plea withdrawal and the sentences as excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying pre‑sentencing motion to withdraw plea based on alleged misunderstanding of SORA and illiteracy	State: plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; SORA advisement was given; no fair and just reason to withdraw	Canaday: he did not understand he would be subject to SORA; is illiterate and did not understand advisement form; would rather withdraw plea than register	Court: Denial affirmed. Record shows SORA advisement at plea; SORA registration is collateral (not punitive) and even flawed advisement would not require withdrawal; Canaday bore burden and did not meet it
Whether sentences were excessive or improperly ordered consecutive	State: sentences within statutory limits, facts and PSR justify consecutive maximum sentences	Canaday: court failed to consider sentencing factors and should have ordered concurrent sentences because offenses related	Court: Sentences affirmed. Court expressly considered statutory sentencing factors and PSR; crimes involved different victims/dates so consecutive sentences were within discretion

State v. Carr, 294 Neb. 185, 881 N.W.2d 192 (2016) (trial court has discretion to allow pre‑sentencing plea withdrawal)
State v. Becker, 304 Neb. 693, 936 N.W.2d 505 (2019) (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits asks whether court abused discretion applying relevant factors)
State v. Uhing, 301 Neb. 768, 919 N.W.2d 909 (2018) (defendant not entitled to withdraw plea for incomplete or incorrect advisement regarding collateral consequences)
State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96, 933 N.W.2d 558 (2019) (definition and review standard for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lane, 299 Neb. 170, 907 N.W.2d 737 (2018) (SORA registration is a collateral civil consequence, not a punitive element of sentence; advisement not required)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228, 917 N.W.2d 895 (2018) (trial court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences)