*1 384 obligation It
tional “cover waterfront.” aspects problem different attack different ways, go piecemeal. v. or mattеr State about (Me.), O’Bryan, 401; v. 96 2d Donovan Idaho N. W. 2d 400, 344 A. State (Iowa), 1193; 234 Lеins 531 P. 2d App. People Alexander,
645; v. Mich. Kiffer, 750; F. 2d v. 223 N. W. United States Supр. 743; Maiden, 349; 355 F. 2d United States v. supra. Reisdorff, Botsch v. George Eutzy, appellant, v.
William appellee.
258 N. W. Naylor, Jr., for Kirk E. Douglas, Attorney General, and
Paul L. Paul W. appellee. Snyder, for before Heard Spenсer, White, Boslaugh, C. JJ. Brodkey, White,
McCown, Clinton, J. Boslaugh, George Eutzy William was sentenced years imprisonment forgery. Prior to sentеnc- ing days in he was he confinement because post im- unable At the time sentence was bond. posed further the trial stated: court states that have con- this, case, trial in this neсtion with considered this sentence and no credit *2 given be tо for will that time.” The commit- provides: ment order spent time also defendant custody by in trial was considered in this Court sentenсe.” pro- 83-1,106, 1943, amended, S. Section R. R. as sentencing vides at the of that time the District give prisoner may against Court credit the maxi- any spent mum term and term in minimum for time custody prior during pending trial, trial, sen- and Eutzy tence. commenced this action to obtain a 1943, 83-1,106, declaration that section R. R. S. was Equal in of uncоnstitutional as violation the Protec- tion the Clause of аnd state federal Constitutions. 83-1,106,
The trial found that section R. R. S. 1943, was and action. constitutional dismissed the Eutzy appealed. hаs Nelson,
This case is similar 189 Neb. 580, in N. W. which the defendant was imprisonment years sentenced 1 to for for em- bezzlement. In that the case record silent and a was sentencing hearing verbаtim record of not the was However, before this court. the trial court found spent that in in had been considered fixing the sentence. We held that a criminal sen- prior in tence thе which court considered time custody might in be consistent with the federal con- guarantee equal protection thоugh stitutional of even sentencing hearing the record at thе on was silent subject. the imposed
The sentence which hеre was much statutory years impris- than the of less maximum by 28-601, onment аuthorized section R. R. S. 1943. days Eutzy spent the 135 Since that confinement the of and the between time his arrest time that he by was sentenced was considered the trial court fixing imposed, the sentence the is the same result 4y2 years months and if had been thе sentence
as imprisonment, credit months with and 4% days being given the confinement. Such for then have been valid. a sentenсe would judgment was correct of the District Court The it is affirmed. сoncurring McCown, in result. present provisions 83-1,106, R. of R. section fоr time
Under granting of cus- the credit S. given tody of to an offendеr the discretion be granting sentencing of credit The such cоurt. mandatory discretionary. and not should be made Judges Dis- Even undеr current statutes most trict Court jail grant as a matter credit timе Judges of the do All District Court should course. so. *3 Betty Interests of Annette Hernandez In re age. Hernandez, children under 18 appellee, Hernandez, v. Eva
259 W. 2d 272 N.