State v. Schmidt, A-16-475

Defendant Tyler U. Schmidt pled no contest to aggravated DUI (third offense) after a plea agreement; a separate driving during revocation charge was dismissed.
Prosecutor introduced certified copies of two prior Lancaster County DUI convictions for enhancement: a 2011 conviction (uncontested) and a 2006 conviction (Exhibit 2).
Defense conceded admissibility of Exhibit 2 but argued it was constitutionally invalid for enhancement because the record lacked an explicit waiver-of-counsel at sentencing (waiver appeared at the combined arraignment/plea only).
The district court found both prior convictions valid for enhancement and sentenced Schmidt to 2–4 years’ imprisonment, $1,000 fine, and 15-year license revocation (interlock after 2 years).
On appeal Schmidt argued (1) the 2006 conviction could not be used to enhance to a third offense and (2) the sentence was excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of 2006 prior conviction for enhancement	State: certified record shows a valid waiver at arraignment/plea and no intervening event revoked waiver; therefore conviction is valid	Schmidt: record lacks an express waiver of counsel at sentencing, and sentencing is a critical stage requiring counsel or an explicit waiver for enhancement purposes	Court: Affirmed admission — waiver at combined arraignment/plea was valid and no intervening event made it ineffective, so the prior conviction could be used for enhancement
Excessive sentence	State: sentence within statutory limits and justified by public safety and defendant’s BAC, injury, and prior DUIs	Schmidt: limited criminal history, remorse, ongoing treatment; probation would better serve rehabilitation	Court: Affirmed — sentence within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion given facts and public-safety concern

State v. Mitchell, 285 Neb. 88, 825 N.W.2d 429 (2013) (standard of review for constitutional validity of prior plea-based conviction used for enhancement)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144, 846 N.W.2d 241 (2014) (State bears burden to prove prior convictions by preponderance for enhancement)
State v. Scheffert, 279 Neb. 479, 778 N.W.2d 733 (2010) (State must show counsel or valid waiver at each critical stage of prior proceedings)
State v. Harig, 192 Neb. 49, 218 N.W.2d 884 (1974) (valid waiver at arraignment/plea may suffice for later sentencing so long as no intervening event renders waiver ineffective)
State v. Castaneda, 295 Neb. 547, 889 N.W.2d 87 (2017) (appellate review of sentence for abuse of discretion when within statutory limits)
State v. Tiff, 199 Neb. 519, 260 N.W.2d 296 (1977) (related discussion of waiver and counsel requirements at subsequent proceedings)
State v. Dyke, 231 Neb. 621, 437 N.W.2d 164 (1989) (once informed of right to counsel, no requirement to readvise on each appearance)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (sentencing appropriateness includes judge’s observations and full facts and circumstances)