State v. Sikes
286 Neb. 38
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Sikes pled guilty to third-offense DUI; district court sentenced 365 days, $600 fine, and 15-year license revocation.
- After a 45-day no-driving period, Sikes could drive if he obtained ignition interlock devices on all vehicles.
- The district court ordered CAM device use for the interlock period and, in written order, abstention from alcohol; oral pronouncement stated CAM use for the 15-year revocation.
- Sikes appealed asserting CAM device irrelevance to marijuana DUI, abstention requirement issue, and excessiveness of sentence.
- Statutes authorize interlock and CAM conditions; CAM requires abstention from alcohol when ordered.
- The court evaluated whether the oral pronouncement or written order controlled and whether the sentence comported with statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAM device relation to offense | Sikes argues CAM device irrelevant to marijuana DUI offense. | Sikes contends CAM is mandated by statute for third-offense DUI irrespective of offense type. | CAM device use upheld as lawful for third-offense DUI. |
| Abstention from alcohol during CAM use | Oral pronouncement lacking abstention issue should control, not written order. | Statute requires abstention whenever CAM is ordered; written order aligns with statute. | Abstention requirement upheld; oral pronouncement sufficient and consistent with statute. |
| Sentence and sanctions not excessive | Sentence/ sanctions excessive given offense and record. | Sentencing within statutory limits, considering prior DUI history and risk. | Sentence and sanctions not an abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Medina-Liborio, 285 Neb. 626 (2013) (independent statutory interpretation required by appellate court)
- State v. Ramirez, 284 Neb. 697 (2012) (appropriate consideration of prior record in sentencing)
- Blaser v. County of Madison, 285 Neb. 290 (2013) (plain meaning of statutory text governs interpretation)
- State v. Clark, 278 Neb. 557 (2009) (correction of sentencing errors when necessary)
- State v. Schnabel, 260 Neb. 618 (2000) (oral pronouncements can govern when consistent with written orders)
- State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78 (2011) (maximum within statutory limits preserves normal sentencing scope)