State v. Mendoza-Bautista, 291 Neb. 876

Background

Christian A. Mendoza-Bautista was charged by complaint (Aug. 7, 2014) and pled no contest to violating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-4,108(1) (driving during revocation).
The complaint mistakenly referenced driving under suspension but the conviction and proceedings concern driving under revocation; neither party contests that the current conviction is for revocation.
At an enhancement hearing, the State offered two prior convictions (May and Aug. 2013) under § 60-4,108(2) (driving under suspension) as prior offenses to elevate the current conviction to a third offense.
Mendoza-Bautista objected, arguing convictions under subsection (2) (suspension) cannot be used to enhance a subsection (1) (revocation) offense; the county court overruled the objection, enhanced the offense to a third offense, and sentenced him to 30 days.
The district court (acting as intermediate appellate court) affirmed; Mendoza-Bautista appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior convictions under § 60-4,108(2) (driving under suspension) may be used to enhance a § 60-4,108(1) (driving under revocation) conviction	Prior convictions were for a different statutory offense (suspension) and thus cannot be used to enhance a revocation conviction	The State contended the two prior suspension convictions were properly admissible to enhance the current revocation offense to a third offense	The court held § 60-4,108(1) can only be enhanced by prior convictions under that same subsection (revocation); convictions under § 60-4,108(2) cannot enhance a § 60-4,108(1) offense

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ramirez, 285 Neb. 203, 825 N.W.2d 801 (discussing distinction between suspension and revocation under Nebraska law)

Outcome: The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated Mendoza-Bautista’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, directing that subsection (2) convictions not be used to enhance a subsection (1) conviction.