State v. Lane
299 Neb. 170
| Neb. | 2018Background
- Defendant Michael E. Lane pleaded no contest to one count of incest (Class III felony) under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-703 after his motion to suppress was denied.
- At the plea hearing the State and the district court erroneously told Lane that the offense did not require sex-offender registration under Nebraska’s SORA; counsel did not object.
- The court accepted Lane’s plea, found it voluntary, and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment (credit 11 days) plus 2 years postrelease supervision.
- The record did not show that the district court completed the mandatory written SORA notification and distribution requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4007 at sentencing.
- On appeal Lane sought withdrawal of his plea based on the SORA misadvice, challenged his sentence, and alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lane may withdraw his plea because court/State misadvised him that SORA did not apply | Lane: misadvice about SORA made plea involuntary; entitles him to withdraw plea | State: SORA registration is a collateral consequence; failure to advise does not invalidate plea | Court: Rejected — SORA duties are collateral; incorrect advisement does not render plea involuntary (plea affirmed) |
| Whether sentencing complied with SORA notification requirements (§ 29-4007) | Lane: sentencing/error arguments that court did not properly advise/notify per SORA | State: district court failed to complete mandatory written notification and distribution; remand required | Court: Found plain error; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing compliant with § 29-4007 |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective (advice re: SORA and waiver of appeal) | Lane: counsel failed to advise regarding SORA and consequences of waiving appeal of suppression ruling; prejudiced his decision to plead | State: record is insufficient on direct appeal to resolve ineffectiveness claims | Court: Did not reach merits — record inadequate to resolve ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33 (discretion to accept plea)
- State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (plain-error doctrine; remand for lawful sentence)
- State v. Mora, 298 Neb. 185 (standards for resolving ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- State v. Bol, 294 Neb. 248 (plea advisement requirements)
- State v. Schneider, 263 Neb. 318 (SORA duties are collateral consequences; not required advisement)
- State v. Payan, 277 Neb. 663 (collateral-consequence treatment of SORA)
- State v. Pathod, 269 Neb. 155 (§ 29-4007 notification requirements are mandatory)
- State v. Gunther, 271 Neb. 874 (appellate power to remand for lawful sentence)