State v. Copple, A-16-300

Background

William P. Copple pleaded guilty in Sarpy County Court to DUI on January 21, 2015; he requested the enhancement hearing be continued until sentencing.
The county court sentenced Copple on April 27, 2015, treating the offense as a third-offense DUI without holding the enhancement hearing.
Copple appealed to the district court; the district court reversed and remanded for an enhancement hearing and resentencing (mandate issued Oct. 23, 2015; spread Oct. 27, 2015).
The county court set the enhancement/sentencing hearing for Nov. 4, 2015; the State obtained three continuances (Nov. 4, 12, 19) and the hearing was held Nov. 20, 2015.
At the Nov. 20 hearing the county court enhanced to third-offense DUI and imposed 365 days jail, $1,000 fine, and 15-year license revocation.
Copple appealed to the district court, arguing (1) the county court failed to comply with the district mandate in a timely manner, (2) the State’s continuances violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (written motion and affidavit required), and (3) the sentence was an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Copple's Argument	State/County Argument	Held
Whether noncompliance with § 25-1148 (no written motion/affidavit) required reversal of continuances	The statute’s requirements are mandatory; multiple unwritten continuances were improper	Prior Nebraska precedent treats noncompliance as one factor for the court to consider	Court held noncompliance is a factor, not a jurisdictional bar; continuances were permissible under precedent
Whether the county court failed to comply with the district court mandate promptly	The mandate required the county court to proceed without delay; any delay justified reversal	Mandate was spread Oct. 27, 2015 as directed; enhancement hearing occurred within a month	Court held the mandate was timely spread and the hearing was timely; no mandate violation
Whether the continuances caused unreasonable delay warranting resentencing as a first offender	Delay by county/State prejudiced Copple and rendered the enhancement/sentence improper	Delay was limited (16 days from initial hearing date); continuances were to obtain prior-conviction documentation	Court held the delay was not unreasonable and did not require relief
Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion given alleged procedural error	If mandate delay or improper continuances occurred, sentence would be excessive and require reversal	No procedural error shown; sentencing as third offender was supported by enhancement hearing	Court held sentence was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed conviction and sentence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Santos, 238 Neb. 25, 468 N.W.2d 613 (1991) (failure to comply with § 25-1148 is a factor to consider when ruling on a continuance)
State v. Roundtree, 11 Neb. App. 628, 658 N.W.2d 308 (2003) (affirming Santos principle that absence of written motion/affidavit is a factor in continuance decisions)
State v. Piper, 289 Neb. 364, 855 N.W.2d 1 (2014) (standard of appellate review for county court appeals to district court)