State v. Webb, A-17-271

Webb (age 69) pled no contest to driving during revocation, subsequent offense; false reporting charge dismissed.
Stop occurred at 1:30 a.m.; Webb gave a false name because his license was suspended until 2029 after a fifth DUI; no interlock permit was issued.
Court accepted prior conviction evidence showing this was a subsequent offense; Webb found guilty.
PSI showed extensive driving-related record: five DUIs (most recent resulted in 30 months–5 years), multiple driving-while-suspended/revocation convictions; no misconduct in recent incarceration.
At sentencing the court considered statutory factors, Webb’s remorse, age, plea, and that the present offense did not involve drinking; sentenced to 30 days jail, 3 years probation, and an additional 15-year license revocation.
State appealed, arguing the sentence was excessively lenient and insufficient to protect the public given Webb’s history.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessively lenient sentence	Sentence is too lenient given Webb’s extensive DUI and revocation history and recent parole discharge; incarceration needed to protect public	Sentence was reasonable considering Webb’s age, remorse, plea, lack of drinking in the present offense, and suitability for probation	No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed

State v. Parminter, 283 Neb. 754, 811 N.W.2d 694 (Neb. 2012) (standard for reviewing sentences within statutory limits and sentencing factors)
State v. Antoniak, 16 Neb. App. 445, 744 N.W.2d 508 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate court does not reassess sentence de novo)