State v. McCulley, 939 N.W.2d 373

McCulley pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that reduced/dismissed several counts in exchange for specified restitution payments to victims.
After entering pleas but before sentencing, she absconded to Oregon for nearly 8 years; she was later arrested, extradited, and found in contempt (30 days).
At sentencing (Feb. 2019) the court imposed three concurrent 1-year jail terms, ordered restitution and costs per the plea agreement, and awarded 27 days’ credit for time served.
Defense asked for credit between 20 and 27.5 days, told the court McCulley was willing to pay restitution and that her mother could pay within 90 days; did not assert inability to pay.
On appeal McCulley argued (1) sentences were excessive, (2) the court miscalculated credit for time served, and (3) the court failed to properly consider her ability to pay restitution and costs under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2281.

Issue	McCulley’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Excessive sentence	Jail time was excessive	Sentence within statutory limits; no abuse of discretion	Moot — appellant conceded she finished serving sentence; Court did not address merits
Credit for time served	Court undercounted days; additional credit should reduce costs	Sentencing court relied on PSI and record; defense had chance to present more time-served evidence	27 days credit upheld; calculation supported by record
Restitution / ability to pay	Court ordered restitution/costs without adequately ascertaining inability to pay; abuse of discretion	Court conducted the §29-2281 inquiry, defendant had agreed to restitution and evidence showed ability or family assistance	Restitution and costs affirmed; court complied with §29-2281 and did not abuse discretion

State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228, 917 N.W.2d 895 (credit for time served is an objective number established by the record)
State v. McBride, 27 Neb. App. 219, 927 N.W.2d 842 (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentences)
State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (entitlement to credit for time served is a question of law)
State v. McMann, 4 Neb. App. 243, 541 N.W.2d 418 (restitution reviewed under same standard as other sentence parts)
State v. Manjikian, 303 Neb. 100, 927 N.W.2d 48 (appropriateness of sentence is a subjective judgment informed by court observations)
State v. Wells, 257 Neb. 332, 598 N.W.2d 30 (addressed evidentiary issues for restitution; court here disapproved Wells to extent it required sworn evidence)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (due process limits on revoking probation for inability to pay)
U.S. v. Dubose, 146 F.3d 1141 (federal restitution statutes upheld against due process challenge despite inability to pay)