State v. Kirby, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 10

Ramon M. Kirby pled no contest in district court to two Class I misdemeanors (criminal mischief [$500–$1,500] and third-degree domestic assault) as part of a plea agreement; restitution of $3,453.60 was paid (or paid by family).
The factual basis described a violent assault (punching, choking, threats to kill) and significant property damage; original charges included felonies that were reduced or dropped under the plea deal.
At the plea hearing Kirby initially expressed confusion and claimed earlier counsel told him charges would be reduced further if restitution was paid quickly; after a sidebar with counsel he affirmed the plea agreement on the record and the court accepted the pleas.
Kirby failed to appear for sentencing in Feb 2015, a warrant issued, and he remained at large for ~14 months until arrested in April 2016; he filed a motion to withdraw his plea in April/June 2016 which the district court denied.
In Aug 2016 the court sentenced Kirby to concurrent 270‑day jail terms (within statutory limits) and set an appeal bond of $250,000 (10% to be posted); Kirby appealed challenging denial of plea withdrawal, sentence excessiveness, and the appeal bond amount.

Issue	Kirby's Argument	State's / Court's Argument	Held
Whether Kirby should be allowed to withdraw his no‑contest pleas pre‑sentence	Kirby said he did not understand plea terms and relied on prior counsel’s promise that paying restitution would further reduce charges (fair and just reason)	Plea colloquy and record show Kirby knowingly, voluntarily accepted the plea after consulting counsel; delay and failure to appear weigh against withdrawal	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion (Kirby failed to prove fair and just reason by clear and convincing evidence)
Whether the 270‑day concurrent jail sentences were excessive	Kirby argued court misweighed sentencing factors and should have imposed probation or minimal jail	Court considered PSI, violence of offense, high risk to reoffend, failure to appear, criminal history, victim impact; sentences within statutory limits	Affirmed — sentences not excessive and not an abuse of discretion
Whether the $250,000 appeal bond was unreasonable/excessive	Kirby argued the bond effectively prevented suspension of sentence on appeal and was excessive for misdemeanors	Court used §29‑2302 reasonableness requirement; considered atrocity of offense, prior failures to appear, risk of nonappearance, and defendant’s history and financial circumstantial evidence	Affirmed — appeal bond reasonable under the circumstances; no abuse of discretion

State v. Carr, 294 Neb. 185 (standard for pre‑sentencing withdrawal of plea)
State v. Baxter, 295 Neb. 496 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Woodward, 210 Neb. 740 (discretion to set bail after felony conviction; convicted defendants treated differently than pretrial defendants)
State v. Howard, 185 Neb. 583 (factors for fixing bail and reasonableness inquiry)