State v. Goeken
A-17-545, A-17-546
| Neb. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Joseph A. Goeken entered no contest pleas in two Douglas County cases: (1) possession of a controlled substance (Class IV) and (2) possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person (Class ID).
- At sentencing the court had accepted both pleas; Goeken waived an updated presentence report and proceeded to sentencing for both cases together.
- Sentences imposed: Case A-17-545 (controlled substance) — 2 years’ imprisonment (with 129 days credit); Case A-17-546 (deadly weapon by a prohibited person) — 9 to 10 years’ imprisonment; the court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
- Goeken has an extensive felony history (seven felony convictions across Nebraska and Iowa) and a documented severe drug addiction, including failure to complete treatment and probation/parole noncompliance.
- Goeken appealed, arguing both sentences were excessive. The court reviews sentences within statutory limits for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 9–10 year sentence for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person is excessive | Goeken: sentence is excessive given his addiction and mitigation | State: sentence within statutory range and justified by offense circumstances and criminal history | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and supported by factors considered by the court |
| Whether 2-year determinate sentence for possession of a controlled substance is proper and whether sentences must run consecutively | Goeken: sentence excessive and court erred procedurally (form of sentence & consecutive requirement) | State: imposed sentence but court may have misapplied form/consecutive requirement | Vacated and remanded — court was required to impose an indeterminate sentence (per §29-2204.02(4)) when sentencing concurrently with a Class ID felony; trial court also erroneously told defendant the controlled-substance sentence had to be consecutive, so court must reconsider whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53 (discusses appellate review of sentencing within statutory limits)
- State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203 (outlines sentencing factors and appellate review for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 606 (explains difference between determinate and indeterminate sentences)