State v. Ralios, 301 Neb. 1027

On July 4, 2017, Gabriel Ralios was stopped for speeding; officer discovered his Missouri license was suspended and charged him with speeding and operating while suspended.
Ralios pled guilty to operating while suspended (Class III misdemeanor) and speeding pursuant to a plea agreement; the court proceeded immediately to sentencing.
At sentencing Ralios produced a Missouri Driver License Bureau letter stating he was “not currently suspended or revoked” as of October 3, 2017, but conceded he did not have a valid Missouri license in hand and could not legally drive at sentencing.
The county court found the Missouri letter insufficient to show “proof of reinstatement” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-4,108(2), considered Ralios’ prior driving-related convictions (found via the JUSTICE system), and sentenced him to 75 days’ jail.
Ralios appealed the sentence to the district court (sitting as an intermediate court of appeal), which affirmed; Ralios then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Missouri clearance letter showing one is “not currently suspended or revoked” satisfies § 60-4,108(2)’s requirement of “proof of reinstatement”	Ralios: the letter shows his suspension ended and thus is proof of reinstatement, so only a fine (≤ $100) is authorized	State: the statute requires proof that the license was affirmatively reinstated and validly permits driving (not mere nonsuspension)	Court: “Proof of reinstatement” requires affirmative proof of a currently valid, issued license or permit that allows driving; the clearance letter was insufficient
Whether the 75-day jail sentence was excessive or an abuse of discretion	Ralios: even if sentence permitted, 75 days was excessive and court failed to consider mitigating factors	State: sentence within statutory limits and supported by defendant’s record and circumstances	Court: 75 days is within statutory guideline for a Class III misdemeanor and not an abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered permissible information

State v. Thompson, 294 Neb. 197, 881 N.W.2d 609 (discussing statutory interpretation and standard of review)
State v. Fields, 268 Neb. 850, 688 N.W.2d 878 (sentence review standard)
State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78, 802 N.W.2d 77 (sentencing factors to consider)
State v. Collins, 292 Neb. 602, 873 N.W.2d 657 (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88, 871 N.W.2d 243 (sentencing discretion and evidence)
State v. Pullens, 281 Neb. 828, 800 N.W.2d 202 (scope of evidence at sentencing)
State v. Cook, 266 Neb. 465, 667 N.W.2d 201 (waiver of objection for failure to timely object)