State v. Parnell, A-16-354

In early May 2015, Keinald (Reginald) V. Parnell broke a window and entered his ex-girlfriend’s home in the middle of the night; her adult son Dominic was present.
Dominic testified Parnell brandished a knife (and Dominic at trial also claimed a gun), forced him to remain in the living room overnight, and threatened him and a relative the next morning.
Police engaged in an hours-long standoff, used tactical resources, and ultimately arrested Parnell in the attic; officers later recovered two knives and, after returning with equipment, a firearm found in basement drywall.
Parnell was tried and convicted by a jury of burglary, first-degree false imprisonment, and terroristic threats; he was acquitted of three firearms-related charges; he had earlier pled guilty to violating a protection order.
The district court found Parnell a habitual criminal, ordered concurrent sentences of 30 to 30 years on the three felony convictions and one year for the protection order, and awarded 327 days credit.
Parnell appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for the three convictions and (2) that the sentences were excessive (and pro se raised judicial bias at prelim, which the court did not consider separately).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic threats and false imprisonment	Parnell argued Dominic’s testimony was unreliable and too inconsistent to support convictions	State argued multiple witnesses and physical evidence supported a finding Parnell restrained and threatened Dominic (knife evidence, standoff, witness observations)	Affirmed: jury credibility determinations control; viewed favorably to State, evidence sufficient
Sufficiency of evidence for burglary (intent)	Parnell argued no proof he entered with intent to steal or commit a felony	State argued intent could be inferred from breaking in at night, statements that he was there over money, and carrying a knife	Affirmed: intent may be inferred from circumstances; sufficient evidence to convict
Excessive sentence	Parnell argued court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (traumatic childhood, age/recidivism risk)	State argued court considered presentence report and mitigation but properly emphasized Parnell’s extensive criminal history and violence	Affirmed: sentences within statutory habitual range; no abuse of discretion
Pro se judicial-bias claim at preliminary hearing	(raised pro se but not argued properly on appeal)	State: claim not specifically argued or properly preserved	Not considered separately (court declined to address noncompliant pro se claims)

State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 (Neb. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence—defer to factfinder on credibility)
State v. McClain, 285 Neb. 537 (Neb. 2013) (reasonable-viewing standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Draper, 295 Neb. 88 (Neb. 2016) (appellate court will not reweigh witness credibility on sufficiency review)
State v. Nero, 281 Neb. 680 (Neb. 2011) (intent for burglary may be inferred from surrounding facts)
State v. Howard, 282 Neb. 352 (Neb. 2011) (factors sentencing court should consider)
State v. Cook, 290 Neb. 381 (Neb. 2015) (preservation/argument requirements for appellate errors)
State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334 (Neb. 2013) (review standard for alleged excessive sentence)