State v. Ortega, 859 N.W.2d 305

Ortega pled guilty to three misdemeanor counts in county court and was sentenced.
After sentencing, Ortega appealed to the district court; the district court affirmed and Ortega then appealed to the Court of Appeals.
An order authorizing Ortega to proceed in forma pauperis on the second appeal appeared to strike the provision that fees would be paid by Dakota County, which Ortega argues denied appellate attorney fees.
The district court’s interlineation in the forma pauperis order was not a proper mechanism to deny attorney fees; attorney fees are governed by a separate statutory procedure.
The county court (not the district court) is the proper appointing court for attorney-fee determinations, and no proper fee application was shown in the record to resolve fees on appeal.
The Court of Appeals and this court concluded the limitation on attorney fees required vacating the district court’s order to the extent it addressed attorney fees, while affirming the convictions and sentences on Ortega’s remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attorney fees denial proper under statute?	Ortega argues district court denied appellate counsel fees by interlining 'fees' in the forma pauperis order.	State contends the issue was not properly before the district court and fee proceedings belong to the county court.	Vacate district order on attorney fees; fees to be addressed by county court.
Were Ortega’s guilty pleas knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered?	Ortega asserted he was under drugs/stress and thus pleas were not knowingly entered.	Record shows Ortega understood charges, rights, and penalties at plea.	No reversible error; pleas knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.
Are Ortega’s sentences excessive?	Ortega argues sentences approach the statutory maximum given the crimes.	Sentences within statutory guidelines given his criminal history.	Not an abuse of discretion; sentences within guidelines.

State v. Boham, 233 Neb. 679 (Neb. 1989) (fee limitations and appointment procedures discussed)
State v. Williams, 276 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2008) (attorney fees and forma pauperis distinctions)
State v. McGuire, 286 Neb. 494 (Neb. 2013) (form of fee handling and appointments)
In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661 (Neb. 2013) (interlineation issues in forma pauperis context)
Glass v. Kenney, 268 Neb. 704 (Neb. 2004) (in forma pauperis fee scope)
State v. Schurman, State v. Schurman, 17 Neb. App. 431 (Neb. App. 2009) (comparison on plea withdrawal issues)
State v. Schneider, 263 Neb. 318 (Neb. 2002) (plea validity and informing defendant)
State v. Tolbert, 288 Neb. 732 (Neb. 2014) (sentencing within guidelines)