State v. Lane, 299 Neb. 170

Defendant Michael E. Lane entered a no-contest plea to one count of incest (Class III felony) pursuant to a plea agreement after a denial of his motion to suppress.
At the plea hearing the court advised Lane of constitutional rights and penalties, and the State provided a factual basis for the offense.
The State and the district court incorrectly told Lane that the offense did not require registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA); defense counsel did not object.
The district court accepted Lane’s plea and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment (credit 11 days) and 2 years’ postrelease supervision.
On appeal Lane argued (1) his plea should be withdrawn because he was misinformed about SORA registration, (2) sentencing errors, and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, found plain error in sentencing due to failure to complete mandatory SORA notification under §29-4007, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing; it did not resolve ineffective-assistance claims on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lane may withdraw his plea because court/State misinformed him that SORA did not apply	Lane: plea was not voluntary/intelligent because he was told he would not have to register under SORA	State: SORA registration is a collateral consequence and nondisclosure does not invalidate a plea	Rejected — plea remains valid; SORA duties are collateral and court need not advise before accepting plea (per Schneider)
Whether sentencing complied with mandatory SORA notification requirements	Lane: (argued sentencing errors generally)	State: district court failed to complete written SORA notification and required distributions under §29-4007; remand appropriate	Held for State — plain error: court failed to complete §29-4007 obligations; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing compliant with SORA
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance related to SORA advice and plea waiver	Lane: counsel failed to advise re: SORA and consequences of plea (including waiver of appeal of suppression ruling)	State: record does not show deficient performance; issues are not adequately developed on direct appeal	Court: record insufficient to resolve ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal; issues preserved for postconviction review if properly pleaded

State v. Russell, 291 Neb. 33, 863 N.W.2d 813 (trial court discretion to accept pleas)
State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356, 842 N.W.2d 694 (plain error standard; remand for lawful sentence)
State v. Mora, 298 Neb. 185, 903 N.W.2d 244 (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Bol, 294 Neb. 248, 882 N.W.2d 674 (plea advisement requirements)
State v. Schneider, 263 Neb. 318, 640 N.W.2d 8 (SORA registration duties are collateral consequences; nondisclosure does not invalidate plea)
State v. Pathod, 269 Neb. 155, 690 N.W.2d 784 (§29-4007 notification requirements are mandatory)
State v. Payne, 277 Neb. 663, 765 N.W.2d 192 (related plea/rights precedents)
State v. Gunther, 271 Neb. 874, 716 N.W.2d 691 (appellate power to remand for resentencing)