State v. Schiesser, 888 N.W.2d 736

Michael R. Schiesser was charged originally with possession of money to be used in violating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(1) and aiding the consummation of a felony; he pled no contest to an amended charge of attempted aiding the consummation of a felony pursuant to a plea agreement.
At a traffic stop in Lancaster County while driving from Wisconsin to California, officers detected burned/raw marijuana odor and found marijuana paraphernalia in the vehicle.
Officers discovered approximately $23,000 in banded currency in various locations in the car; a canine alerted to the currency and a pretest found cannabis residue.
Schiesser initially downplayed ownership but later claimed full ownership of the money to protect the passenger; a recorded call and passenger statements allocated portions of the cash to each.
The presentence report and Schiesser’s prior Wisconsin felony marijuana convictions, plus shipping labels and travel patterns, were offered as part of the factual basis suggesting the funds were proceeds of drug distribution.
The district court accepted the plea, sentenced Schiesser to 365 days and a $1,000 fine; Schiesser appealed arguing the factual basis was insufficient to support the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Schiesser)	Held
Sufficiency of factual basis for plea to attempted aiding consummation of a felony	The prosecutor and presentence report supplied sufficient circumstantial facts tying the cash and conduct to drug distribution and showing attempted aid (e.g., giving $1,000 to passenger).	The State failed to prove the money was proceeds of a felony in Nebraska or adequately show its source/purpose; factual basis insufficient.	Affirmed: factual basis (including circumstantial evidence, prior convictions, drug residue, canine alert, allocations of cash, and prosecutor’s proffer) was sufficient to support conviction.
Waiver/judicial estoppel of challenge to factual basis after no-contest plea	The State argued Schiesser waived or is estopped from challenging the factual basis by pleading no contest.	Schiesser maintained he could challenge sufficiency because a sufficient factual basis is required to show the plea was understandingly and voluntarily made.	Court held defendant may challenge factual basis after a no-contest plea; such a challenge was not waived or barred by judicial estoppel.

State v. Wilkinson, 293 Neb. 876, 881 N.W.2d 850 (discussing limits on appeals after no-contest pleas and that factual basis may be challenged)
State v. Hansen, 289 Neb. 478, 855 N.W.2d 777 (interpreting § 28-205 “profit” and aiding the consummation as a separate post-felony crime)
State v. Badami, 235 Neb. 118, 453 N.W.2d 746 (circumstantial evidence can supply sufficient factual basis)
State v. Cervantes, 15 Neb. App. 457, 729 N.W.2d 686 (factual basis for plea may be established by prosecutor inquiry or presentence report)
Peterson v. Houston, 284 Neb. 861, 824 N.W.2d 26 (State must prove proper venue beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Abraham, 189 Neb. 728, 205 N.W.2d 342 (convictions may rest on circumstantial evidence when it excludes reasonable hypotheses other than guilt)