State v. Lloyd, A-16-521

Background

In the early morning of March 31, 2015, Omaha police responded to a burglary in progress at a vacant, owner-remodeling house on Crown Point Avenue; officers observed Dontevous D. Loyd exiting the front door and detained him.
Officers discovered a forcibly opened back door (hinges removed, deadbolt exposed) and copper piping removed from around the furnace, water heater, and new laundry hookups; copper pieces were found crumpled in a shop-vac container.
Homeowner William Mora had last been at the property five days earlier, had secured doors and left water on; after the incident he observed removed piping, damaged piping, removed drop-ceiling tiles, and the water shutoff turned off. Repair costs were about $1,200.
Co-defendant Eljuan Daniel fled back into the house when first seen, later surrendered after a canine was deployed. No cutting tools, saws, backpacks, or vehicles belonging to Loyd or Daniel were found at the scene.
Loyd was tried by jury, convicted of burglary (Class III felony at time of offense), and sentenced to 14–18 years’ imprisonment; he appealed arguing insufficiency of evidence and that his sentence was excessive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Loyd)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove burglary (forcible entry + intent to steal)	Evidence of forcible entry, removed copper found in shop-vac, defendants caught exiting, homeowner testimony that property was secured and pipes removed — supports burglary conviction	Five-day gap between owner’s last visit and arrest could mean damage/piping removal occurred earlier; no tools, fingerprints, DNA, vehicle, or bags found; Loyd was merely present	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to State, circumstantial evidence supported forcible entry and intent; flight/conduct supported consciousness of guilt
Whether Loyd was more than a mere bystander	Flight from the house as police arrived and other circumstantial evidence indicate participation or guilty consciousness	Lack of direct physical evidence tying Loyd to the physical act (no tools, prints, DNA) suggests mere presence	Affirmed — jury could infer consciousness of guilt and participation from conduct and other facts
Whether sentencing court abused discretion / failed to consider mitigating factors	Court considered PSI, defendant’s criminal history, demeanor, and institution conduct; sentence within statutory range	Court failed to seriously consider Timmens mitigating factors; cited arrests while in custody and comparisons to co-defendant	Affirmed — sentence (14–18 years) within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion
Consideration of arrests/pending charges and institutional discipline at sentencing	Sentencing court may consider criminal history, pending charges, and disciplinary record	Such consideration was improper or excessive in aggravation	Affirmed — court permissibly considered prior arrests, pending charges, and disciplinary history in sentencing decision

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 293 Neb. 452 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 (flight and consciousness of guilt may be considered)
State v. Jacob, 253 Neb. 950 (jury may consider voluntary flight)
State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50 (discussion of limits on prior decisions)
State v. Lincoln, 183 Neb. 770 (circumstances plus departure support inference of flight)
State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448 (circumstantial evidence may support possession convictions)
State v. Tucker, 262 Neb. 940 (sentencing court may consider multiple arrests)
State v. Klappal, 218 Neb. 374 (sentencing may consider withdrawn pleas)
State v. Janis, 207 Neb. 491 (sentencing may consider charges dismissed in plea bargains)
State v. Timmens, 263 Neb. 622 (enumeration of mitigating factors for sentencing)