State v. Earnest, 997 N.W.2d 589

Earnest was charged after a December 24, 2021 head‑on crash: he crossed a raised median while intoxicated, four passengers were in the other vehicle, and two required surgery. Law enforcement found open containers in his vehicle and his BAC was .292.
He was released on bond with conditions not to drive or consume alcohol; bond was later revoked after an incident in December 2022 in which police attempted to stop him, he fled, and a post‑arrest blood test showed alcohol.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Earnest pled no contest to one count of DUI causing serious bodily injury and one count of third‑degree assault; the court accepted the factual basis and set sentencing.
The district court sentenced Earnest to 3 years imprisonment, 18 months post‑release supervision, a $10,000 fine, and a 15‑year license revocation for the DUI conviction; it also imposed 1 year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for assault, ordering the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively.
Earnest appealed, arguing the court erred by imposing the $10,000 fine without first considering his ability to pay and that his sentences were excessive/misapplied the law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court had to inquire into Earnest's ability to pay before imposing $10,000 fine	Earnest: § 29‑2206 requires the court to determine ability to pay before imposing any fine.	State: § 29‑2206's ability‑to‑pay inquiry applies when the court makes imprisonment until fines are paid part of the sentence; not applicable here.	The court: § 29‑2206 did not require a pre‑imposition inquiry here; other statutes afford post‑judgment ability‑to‑pay hearings; no error.
Whether sentences were excessive or affected by legal errors (license revocation/interlock and consecutive sentencing)	Earnest: court misstated the law (said license must be revoked 15 years with no interlock and said consecutive sentences were required) and failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors (age, limited criminal history, plea).	State: sentences were within statutory limits; court considered relevant factors; any misstatements were not prejudicial.	The court: sentencing was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion; the court’s comment about interlock was a permissible statement of what the law "allows," its erroneous belief that consecutive sentences were required was harmless because the court would have imposed consecutive terms anyway, and the record shows consideration of mitigating factors.

State v. Alkazahy, 314 Neb. 406, 990 N.W.2d 740 (statutory interpretation and standard of review for sentences)
State v. Berney, 288 Neb. 377, 847 N.W.2d 732 (remand normally required when trial court erroneously believes consecutive sentences are mandated)
State v. Thomas, 311 Neb. 989, 977 N.W.2d 258 (no requirement that sentencing court recite consideration of each sentencing factor on the record)
State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for trial court's sentencing choice)