State v. Woodruff, 965 N.W.2d 836

Background

On Nov. 23, 2020, Johnny R. Woodruff pled no contest to two consolidated cases: one count of third-degree domestic assault (second offense), a Class IIIA felony, and one count of possession of methamphetamine, a Class IV felony. The State agreed to dismiss charges in a third case.
The factual basis: Woodruff struck his girlfriend, forcibly took her bag, fled; when arrested on a warrant police found a broken pipe and methamphetamine on his person. Woodruff stipulated to a prior domestic-assault conviction despite defense counsel advising against stipulation.
Woodruff waived a separate sentencing hearing and a presentence investigation report and chose to be sentenced the same day he entered pleas.
The court sentenced Woodruff to 364 days (assault) and 180 days (possession), ordered to run consecutively; the court also imposed 12 months’ post-release supervision (PRS) for the possession conviction only and credited 171 days’ time served in each case via separate orders.
Woodruff filed pro se motions to withdraw pleas and timely appealed, arguing his sentences were excessive and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance; the State raised plain error regarding the absence of statutorily required PRS for the Class IIIA conviction and errors in time-credit awards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Woodruff)	Held
Whether the sentences were excessive	Sentences are within statutory ranges and the court did not abuse discretion	Sentences excessive; court failed to consider mitigating factors and no PSI was prepared	Affirmed as to excessiveness (no abuse); sentences within statutory limits; no improper factors considered
Whether omission of post-release supervision for Class IIIA was error	Omission is plain error because PRS for Class IIIA is statutorily required	Woodruff argued PRS was inappropriate and an opportunity to fail (but did not assign omission as error)	Plain error found; remanded in A-20-920 for resentencing to impose PRS and to state whether PRS terms run concurrently or consecutively
Whether time-served credit was properly awarded	Credit for presentence incarceration must be applied only to the aggregate when sentences are consecutive	Court awarded 171 days credit in each case (totaling 342 days) for the same custody period	Modified: 171 days credited only to first sentence (A-20-920); no duplicate credit to A-20-921
Whether trial counsel was ineffective (multiple subclaims)	Record either refutes ineffective assistance or is insufficient to resolve claims on direct appeal	Counsel failed to file/preseve pretrial motions, failed to review discovery, failed to present mitigation, and gave deficient plea advice	Claims either fail on the record (e.g., counsel advised against stipulation and defendant insisted) or are too vague/insufficiently pled to review on direct appeal; no relief granted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Estrada Comacho, 309 Neb. 494, 960 N.W.2d 739 (sentencing abuse-of-discretion standard and factors to consider)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
State v. Blaha, 303 Neb. 415, 929 N.W.2d 494 (plea waives defenses except voluntariness and IAC claims)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88, 871 N.W.2d 243 (when sentences are consecutive, presentence incarceration credit applies against the aggregate/first term)
State v. Bree, 285 Neb. 520, 827 N.W.2d 497 (time-served credit is not discretionary)
State v. Theisen, 306 Neb. 591, 946 N.W.2d 677 (when IAC can be resolved on direct appeal depends on sufficiency of the record)
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (plain-error review; PRS concurrency/consecutivity discretion)
State v. Wills, 285 Neb. 260, 826 N.W.2d 581 (questions of law govern entitlement and amount of time-served credit)