State v. Robeson, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 138

Robeson pled guilty to one count of first degree sexual assault (Class II felony) as part of a plea bargain after proposed two-count charging originally; the State amended to two Class II felonies and dismissed one count; the plea agreement contemplated a joint recommendation of 40 to 40 years’ imprisonment; sentencing occurred after an expedited process with defense counsel waiving a presentence investigation; Robeson sought resentencing arguing the absence of a presentence investigation, an excessive sentence, and issues regarding identical minimum/maximum terms, plus ineffective assistance of counsel; the district court accepted the plea and sentenced Robeson to 40 to 40 years; Robeson appealed asserting four main issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of presentence investigation valid?	Robeson contends waiver not knowingly/voluntarily given.	Robeson argues waiver was not properly informed or voluntary.	Waiver valid under totality of circumstances.
Excessive sentence?	Sentence too harsh given mitigating factors.	Court adequately considered mitigating factors and plea agreement.	Sentence not excessive; within statutory limits and supported by record.
Identical minimum and maximum terms (de facto determinate)?	40-to-40-year term is improper under §29-2204.	Pre-2015 framework applied; sentence valid under prior law; not de facto determinate.	Not a de facto determinate sentence; valid under the applicable statute.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel—plea advice?	Counsel advised accepting plea and 40-to-40 sentence.	Record shows plea knowingly entered; likely no prejudice from advice.	No ineffective assistance shown on direct appeal for plea-advising counsel.
Ineffective assistance—failure to request presentence investigation?	Counsel failed to pursue investigation; potential prejudice.	Record insufficient to determine counsel’s role in waiver; need further review.	Record insufficient to address on direct appeal; not resolved.

State v. Qualls, 284 Neb. 929 (2012) (clarifies waiver analysis of presentence report rights)
State v. Kellogg, 10 Neb. App. 557 (2001) (presentence report waiver needs explicit discussion; implied waiver insufficient in Kellogg)
State v. Tolbert, 223 Neb. 794 (1986) (presence of waiver of presentence report rights)
State v. Kennedy, 224 Neb. 164 (1986) (recognizes implied acquiescence as waiver mechanism)
State v. Qualls, 824 N.W.2d 362 (2012) (advisory sufficiency for waiver not requiring formal litany)
State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 606 (2017) (same min/max does not negate indeterminate status)