State v. Collins, 307 Neb. 581

Collins was stopped by police; after refusing to exit her vehicle and reportedly speeding away through a residential area, she was arrested for operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest (initially charged as a felony) and later charged with obstructing a police officer.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Collins pled guilty to Class I misdemeanors: operating to avoid arrest (§ 28-905(2)) and obstructing an officer (§ 28-906); the county court fined her $750 (operating) and $250 (obstructing) and revoked her driver’s license for 1 year.
An appearance bond had been posted (10% cash deposit of a $7,500 bond); after retaining $75 for bond costs, the county court applied the remaining bond money to fines/costs.
Collins moved for a new trial and to reconsider sentence based on “newly discovered” mitigating facts (single mother, student, need to participate in drug court); the county court denied the motions and kept the bond applied to fines.
The district court (intermediate appellate review) affirmed the county court. Collins appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, challenging (1) alleged excessive sentence (license revocation), (2) application of bond to fines/costs, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Collins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Excessive sentence — license revocation	County court failed to consider Collins’ personal circumstances (single mother, student, drug court participation); 1-year revocation is excessive.	Sentence (fine + up to 1-year revocation) is within statutory limits; court properly considered facts and demeanor; revocation discretionary under statute.	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory authority and supported by case circumstances (dangerous flight).
Application of bond to fines/costs	§ 29-901 and precedent require return of 90% of appearance bond; applying bond to fines/costs was prohibited.	2012 amendment to § 29-2206 permits courts to deduct fines/costs from bond; read with § 29-901, § 29-2206 is a specific exception.	Affirmed — court may deduct fines/costs from bond under § 29-2206; § 29-901 does not prohibit that deduction.
Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing	Counsel failed to present mitigating evidence at sentencing and failed to request return of bond, prejudicing Collins.	Record shows counsel acted reasonably given circumstances; Collins was advised of possible revocation and had opportunity to speak; counsel’s affidavit explains limited time and no prejudice shown.	Affirmed — record does not conclusively show deficient performance or prejudice; claim refuted on direct appeal.

State v. Valentino, 939 N.W.2d 345 (discussing standards of review for county court appeals)
State v. Price, 944 N.W.2d 279 (enumerating sentencing factors and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Theisen, 946 N.W.2d 677 (when ineffective-assistance claims can be resolved on direct appeal)
State v. Anderson, 943 N.W.2d 690 (deficient performance and prejudice standards for ineffective assistance)
State v. Martinez, 946 N.W.2d 445 (deference to sentence within statutory limits absent abuse of discretion)
State v. McKichan, 364 N.W.2d 47 (prior rule on mandatory refund of cash bond deposits)
State v. Zamarron, 806 N.W.2d 128 (Court of Appeals decision on application of bond to costs)
In re Estate of Psota, 900 N.W.2d 790 (legislative intent and presumption regarding prior statutes)
Shipler v. General Motors Corp., 710 N.W.2d 807 (last expression of legislative will governs)