950 N.W.2d 594
Neb.2020Background
- Aaron Teppert pleaded guilty to DUI and driving with a suspended license; at sentencing the State sought enhancement based on three prior DUI convictions.
- Teppert did not contest two prior convictions but objected to a 2010 Red Willow County DUI conviction, arguing the records did not affirmatively show he had counsel or validly waived counsel.
- The district court received the 2010 court records, found Teppert’s current conviction was a fourth offense, and imposed sentence; Teppert appealed.
- After the enhancement hearing but before this appeal was decided, the Nebraska Supreme Court decided State v. Vann, which presumes regularity for convictions obtained after Gideon and places the burden on defendants to prove they lacked or waived counsel.
- The 2010 journal entry and order recorded advisements of rights (including counsel), stated the defendant waived rights and pled knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and reflected appointment of counsel for sentencing.
- Standard of review: a sentencing court’s determination about the constitutional validity of a prior plea-based conviction used for enhancement is reviewed for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by admitting the 2010 DUI conviction records for sentence enhancement | State: Records are admissible; they show advisements, waiver, guilty plea, and appointment of counsel for sentencing | Teppert: Records are silent as to an affirmative, knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of counsel and thus inadmissible under pre-Vann precedent | Court: No error—records reasonably show waiver and a valid plea; admission affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vann, 306 Neb. 91, 944 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 2020) (post-Gideon convictions entitled to presumption of regularity; defendant must show lack of or invalid waiver of counsel)
- State v. Orduna, 250 Neb. 602, 550 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 1996) (a valid guilty plea that is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary supports inference that any waiver of counsel was likewise valid)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (established right to counsel in state felony cases)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992) (rejected reading of Burgett that precluded presumption of regularity for prior convictions)
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967) (addressed use of prior convictions in later proceedings)
- State v. Garcia, 281 Neb. 1, 792 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2010) (illustrative of pre-Vann decisions requiring affirmative proof of counsel or waiver)
- State v. Hall, 270 Neb. 669, 708 N.W.2d 209 (Neb. 2005) (State bears burden to prove prior convictions by a preponderance in enhancement proceedings)