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

Ramon M. Kirby pled no contest in district court to two Class I misdemeanors arising from a 2013 incident: criminal mischief ($500–$1,500) and third-degree domestic assault; factual basis described physical assault, choking, death threat, and over $3,000 in property damage.
The plea agreement (as placed on the record) reduced original felony charges to misdemeanors and required payment of $3,453.60 restitution (which was paid or paid by family).
Kirby later claimed he misunderstood the plea terms, asserting earlier counsel promised further charge reductions if restitution was paid; he moved to withdraw his pleas in April 2016 (nearly 17 months after the plea) and after failing to appear for an earlier sentencing date (a warrant issued and he was arrested in April 2016).
The district court denied the pre‑sentence motion to withdraw, finding Kirby had been informed of the plea, had consulted counsel, and knowingly and voluntarily entered the pleas.
At sentencing the court imposed concurrent 270‑day jail terms (within statutory limits) and set an appeal bond of $250,000 (10% cash), reasoning the amount was reasonable given Kirby’s flight history and criminal record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Kirby’s pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his no‑contest pleas	Kirby: he did not fully understand plea terms; prior counsel promised further reductions if restitution paid, so withdrawal is "fair and just"	State: plea colloquy and on‑the‑record confirmation show Kirby understood and voluntarily accepted the plea; motion filed long after plea and after failure to appear	Court: Denial affirmed — Kirby failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a fair and just reason to withdraw plea
Whether the 270‑day concurrent sentences were excessive	Kirby: court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (age, caretaking, work history)	State: sentences within statutory limits and justified by offense seriousness, victim impact, high risk to reoffend, and prior record	Court: Sentences affirmed — within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion
Whether the $250,000 appeal bond was unreasonable/excessive	Kirby: bond amount effectively prevented suspension of sentence and was excessive for two misdemeanors	State: bond reasonable given Kirby’s failure to appear, flight risk, and criminal history	Court: Appeal bond affirmed — §29‑2302 requires a reasonable recognizance and district court did not abuse its discretion

State v. Carr, 294 Neb. 185 (holding standard for pre‑sentence plea withdrawal and burden of clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Baxter, 295 Neb. 496 (defining abuse of discretion standard for judicial rulings)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687 (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (factors for sentencing and appellate deference)
State v. Hernandez, 1 Neb. App. 830 (distinguishing pretrial bonds from postconviction appeal bonds)
State v. Woodward, 210 Neb. 740 (discretion to set bail after felony conviction)
State v. Dawn, 246 Neb. 384 (upholding substantial appeal bond after prior failures to appear)
State v. Griffin, 270 Neb. 578 (district court discretion to modify appeal bond)
State v. Howard, 185 Neb. 583 (considerations for reasonableness of bail amount)