State v. Clemens
915 N.W.2d 550
Neb.2018Background
- In June–August 2016 Nathan Clemens moved from Colorado to Nebraska; Colorado records showed he was registered there as a sex offender and last registered January 14, 2016.
- Clemens did not register in Nebraska within the three working days required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4004(1).
- State charged violation of SORA; charge was amended to attempted violation and Clemens pleaded guilty on June 5, 2017 after the State recited a factual basis that he was required to register in Colorado and had not registered in Nebraska.
- After sentencing, Clemens presented a Nebraska State Patrol letter terminating his registration (citing the Eighth Circuit decision A.W. by & through Doe) and appealed, arguing plain error because he was required to register in Colorado based on a juvenile adjudication and therefore was not "required to register as a sex offender" under Nebraska law.
- Clemens did not move to withdraw his plea or raise a constitutional challenge in district court; appeal limited to whether there was a sufficient factual basis and whether the plea was understandingly and voluntarily made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clemens) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a sufficient factual basis to accept Clemens' guilty plea to attempted violation of SORA | Clemens: Eighth Circuit's A.W. means juvenile adjudications in other states do not make one a "sex offender" under § 29-4003(1)(a)(iv); thus he was not required to register in Nebraska and could not have committed the offense | State: The statute’s plain language requires registration in Nebraska if a person is required to register under another jurisdiction’s law, regardless of whether the other registration arose from a juvenile adjudication | Court: Affirmed State — § 29-4003(1)(a)(iv) is read externally (look to other jurisdiction’s law); factual basis sufficient because Clemens was registered in Colorado and failed to register in Nebraska |
| Whether the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation in A.W. controls Nebraska courts | Clemens: A.W. correctly interprets SORA to require a conviction-level predicate under Nebraska law | State: A.W. misreads the plain statutory text; Nebraska law looks to the other jurisdiction’s registration requirement | Court: Rejected A.W.; adopted plain-text external approach and declined to import a Nebraska "conviction" requirement |
| Whether the plea was entered understandingly and voluntarily | Clemens: Could not knowingly plead to an offense he did not commit if registration did not apply | State: Plea colloquy and facts recited established knowledge and factual basis | Court: Plea was entered understandingly and voluntarily; sufficient factual basis existed |
| Whether issues like public disclosure or constitutional challenges based on juvenile adjudication are resolved here | Clemens: Raised related policy/constitutional concerns indirectly | State: Those issues were not preserved below and are distinct from the factual-basis question | Court: Declined to address those unresolved statutory/constitutional/public-disclosure questions on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- A.W. by and through Doe v. State, 865 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 2017) (Eighth Circuit interpreted Nebraska SORA to exclude registration duties based on out-of-state juvenile adjudications)
- Skaggs v. Nebraska State Patrol, 282 Neb. 154 (2011) (a registrant's actual registration in another jurisdiction is conclusive evidence that the person was required to register under § 29-4003(1)(a)(iv))
- State v. Wilkinson, 293 Neb. 876 (2016) (a sufficient factual basis is required to find a plea understandingly and voluntarily made)
- Murphy v. Commonwealth, 500 S.W.3d 827 (Ky. 2016) (interpreting an external-approach registration statute to require registration when another state requires it, even if predicate was a juvenile adjudication)