STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V. EDDIE H. DEHNING, APPELLANT.
No. S-16-761
Nebraska Supreme Court
April 27, 2017
296 Neb. 537
Nеbraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets, 296 Nebraska Reports, STATE v. DEHNING. Filed April 27, 2017. ___ N.W.2d ___.
Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. The rеlevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. - Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
- Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court‘s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.
- Sentences. When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court should customarily consider the defendant‘s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as wеll as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the violence involved in the commission of the offense. However, the sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors.
- ____. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge‘s observation of the defendant‘s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant‘s life.
Steven E. Elmshaeuser for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Joe Meyer for appellee.
HEAVICAN, C.J., WRIGHT, MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, STACY, KELCH, and FUNKE, JJ.
MILLER-LERMAN, J.
NATURE OF CASE
Eddie H. Dehning, the appellant, was charged with exploitation of a vulnerable adult and theft by unlawful taking. After a trial, the jury found Dehning guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced Dehning to imprisonment of 60 to 60 months for the conviction of exploitation of a vulnerable adult and imprisonment of 5 to 10 years for the theft conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The sentences were also ordered to be served consecutively to Dehning‘s sentences resulting from a separate criminal case. Dehning appeals. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 2, 2015, Dehning was charged by information with two counts: Count I was exploitation of a vulnerable adult, a Class IIIA felony, and count II was theft by unlawful taking, a Class III felony. The information alleged that from approximately January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, Dеhning had exploited a vulnerable adult, specifically his mother, Cora Bell Dehning (Cora Bell), and that he had stolen property from Cora Bell having an aggregate value of more than $1,500.
Dehning pled not guilty to the charges, and a jury trial was held on April 25 and 26, 2016. The State called 10 witnesses, including bank employees, members of Dehning and Cora Bell‘s family, a physician‘s assistant, the former
The evidence adduced at trial generally showed that Cora Bell and her husband had two children: Dehning and his sister. After Cora Bell‘s husband retired in the early to mid-1980‘s, they moved to Sidney, Nebraska. Cora Bell‘s husband died in 1988, and after his death, Cora Bell continued to live independently in Sidney.
Dehning became Cora Bell‘s power of attorney in February 2011. In June 2011, Cora Bell moved from Sidney to Big Springs, Nebraska, which was closer to where Dehning lived. After Cora Bell was found at her home unconscious in December 2012, she was moved to an assisted living facility in February 2013. Later in 2013, Cora Bell was facing eviction from the assisted living facility, and in November 2013, Marvin Remington, Cora Bell‘s younger brother, and James Fraker, Cora Bell‘s nephew, became Cora Bell‘s powers of attorney.
Many of the witnesses testified regarding the mental state of Cora Bell. Remington testified that in 2007, Cora Bell “started having a little bit of [a] mind problem like she wasn‘t really thinking clearly likе she always did before.” He testified that in 2009, he noticed that Cora Bell would mix up her medications or forget to take them. James Fraker testified that in 2009 or 2010, he started to notice that Cora Bell was displaying signs of dementia. James Fraker stated that Cora Bell was repeating herself frequently and that by 2011, she was becoming forgetful and having a hard time carrying on a normal conversation. The former sheriff of Deuel County testified that he was informed by Dehning; James Frаker; and James Fraker‘s wife, Paula Fraker, that Cora Bell was suffering from dementia.
Collins also testified regarding Cora Bell‘s mental state. Collins testified that Cora Bell moved from Sidney to Big Springs so Dehning and Collins could check on her more easily. Collins stated that she would go to Cora Bell‘s house
A physician‘s assistant, Lisa Regier, testified that she had treated Cora Bell from October 2011 through June 2012. In October 2011, after Regier learned that Cora Bell would sometimes forget to take her medication, Regier ordered an MRI. On November 21, after receiving the results of the MRI, Regier informed Cora Bell that she hаd what appeared to be Alzheimer‘s disease. Regier gave Cora Bell a “Mini-Mental Status Exam” on December 23, and based on the results of that examination, Regier determined that Cora Bell had mild or moderate Alzheimer‘s disease. Regier prescribed two medications to Cora Bell to slow the progression of the disease. On June 1, 2012, Regier met with Cora Bell again, and Regier testified that at that point, “it was obvious that the Alzheimer‘s disease was [а]ffecting [Cora Bell‘s] memory” and that it was “difficult for her to manage independently at that time.” Regier testified that although June 1 was the first time she really noted that it was difficult for Cora Bell to function independently, she had concerns about Cora Bell‘s ability to care for herself beginning in November 2011.
With respect to Cora Bell‘s financial situation, the evidence adduced at trial showed that in 2013, other members of Cora Bell‘s family became aware that shе was facing eviction from her assisted living facility, and as a result, they became involved in Cora Bell‘s financial affairs. As noted above, in November 2013, Remington and James Fraker became Cora Bell‘s powers of attorney. At trial, the State offered and the court received the bank records for two of Cora Bell‘s accounts and two of Dehning‘s accounts.
After Remington and James Fraker became Cora Bell‘s powers of attorney, they began examining Cora Bell‘s bank
opened a bank account at [a bank] in Big Springs for her and he was always transferring money around but he might take $2,500 out of [a] bank in Sidney . . . and he‘d move it to Big Springs but when he put the money in the bank in Big Sрrings it would be usually [$]2,000 deposited and [$]500 missing.
Remington further testified that Dehning had rented out Cora Bell‘s house located in Sidney but that very little of the rent money was deposited into Cora Bell‘s bank accounts.
James Fraker testified that after becoming power of attorney along with Remington, they both noticed that Cora Bell had very little money in her bank accounts. James Fraker testified that after further investigation, “it was kind of evident that [Dehning] had been taking some of [Cоra Bell‘s] money and spending it.” Similar to Remington‘s testimony, James Fraker testified that Dehning would transfer money between Cora Bell‘s bank account in Sidney and her account in Big Springs and that
during the transfer he would take cash out, like I say if he took $1,500 out of [the] bank in Sidney and transfer [sic] it over to the bank in Big Springs maybe [$]1,200 or $1,100 would show up and the rest would be taken out. You could see on the deposit slip there would always be a deduction out for cash.
James Fraker further testified that Cora Bell‘s debit card was used and automated teller machine withdrawals occurred in areas of Nebraska to which Cora Bell would not have traveled.
Paula Fraker testified that she examined Cora Bell‘s bank accounts along with Remington and James Fraker. She testified that she prepared spreadsheets regarding Cora Bell‘s
Numerous voluminous bank records from two of Cora Bell‘s accounts and two of Dehning‘s accounts were received in evidence. These formed part of the basis on which the State relied to prove the amount of the theft alleged in count II.
Collins also testified regarding Cora Bell‘s finances. She stated that after receiving thе rent for Cora Bell‘s house in Sidney, Dehning would deposit the money into his bank account. Collins further testified that Dehning once purchased a shed to be used at his house and that he paid for it with a check drawn on Cora Bell‘s bank account. Collins also testified that Dehning purchased many guns and electronics in 2012 and 2013.
After the State concluded the presentation of its case in chief, Dehning moved for a “directed verdict.” The district court overruled Dehning‘s mоtion.
Dehning testified in his own behalf. Dehning generally testified that he had Cora Bell‘s permission and consent for all of the financial transactions that were being questioned. He testified: “I had permission to do anything I wanted to do.” Dehning also testified that Cora Bell was present with him for many of the automated teller machine withdrawals that were at issue.
As a specific example of Cora Bell‘s permission and to rebut Collins’ testimony, Dehning testified that he had Cora
Regarding his defense that he had Cora Bell‘s consent, Dehning testified that Cora Bell had specifically told him that “any of her money was [Dehning‘s] money.” He also testified that Cora Bell did not have a good relationship with her daughter, and Dehning stated that Cora Bell told him: “[Y]ou don‘t be leaving money in the bank, you keep that money moving so your sister don‘t get it. It‘s your money.”
After the trial concluded, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, with the theft valued at $32,447.28.
A sentencing hearing was held on July 11, 2016. The district court sentenced Dehning to imprisonment of 60 to 60 months for the conviction of exploitation of a vulnerable adult and to imprisonment of 5 to 10 years for the theft conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The sentences were also ordered to be served сonsecutively to Dehning‘s previous sentences resulting from a separate criminal case in Keith County. Dehning was not given credit for time served, because he was in prison on the separate previous criminal case.
Dehning appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Dehning claims that his convictions should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the district court erred by imposing excessive sentences.
[1] In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. The relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. McCurry, ante p. 40, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017).
[2,3] We will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Draper, 295 Neb. 88, 886 N.W.2d 266 (2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court‘s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. Id.
ANALYSIS
The Evidence Was Sufficient: Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult.
Dehning contends that the evidence failed to show that Cora Bell was a “vulnerable adult” and that therefore, his conviction of count I, exploitation of a vulnerable adult, should be vacated. We do not agree.
Dehning was convicted under
A person commits knowing and intentional abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult or sеnior adult if he or she through a knowing and intentional act causes or permits a vulnerable adult or senior adult to be:
(a) Physically injured;
(b) Unreasonably confined;
(c) Sexually abused;
(d) Exploited;
(e) Cruelly punished;
(f) Neglected; or
(g) Sexually exploited.
Dehning focuses on the timeframe alleged in the information, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013. He essentially asserts that because Cora Bell lived independently until December 2012, she was not vulnerable for at least some of the time period charged.
In an аppeal of a criminal conviction, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. See State v. McCurry, supra. There was testimonial evidence that Cora Bell had “mind problem[s]” and difficulty taking medication in 2007, that she suffered from confusion in 2009, and that Dehning was made Cora Bell‘s power of attorney in February 2011 because of her impairment. Regier diagnosed Cora Bell with Alzheimer‘s disease in December 2011.
Taken together, the evidence shows that Cora Bell was not merely experiencing undifferentiated aging. See State v. Rakosnik, 22 Neb. App. 194, 849 N.W.2d 538 (2014) (affirming convictions where evidence established elements of exploitation of vulnerable adult). Compare State v. Stubbs, 252 Neb. 420, 562 N.W.2d 547 (1997) (reversing conviction where evidence showed natural aging). Consistent with
The Evidence Was Sufficient: Theft by Unlawful Taking.
Dehning contends that because he testified that Cora Bell gave him consent for the challengеd transactions, the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime of theft by unlawful taking beyond a reasonable doubt. Dehning‘s argument rests on our acceptance that Dehning‘s testimony was credible, but this argument contradicts our standard of review. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we do not pass on the credibility of witnesses—that is for the trier of fact. The relevant question for an appellate court is whethеr, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. McCurry, supra. We reject Dehning‘s argument.
Dehning was convicted of count II, violating
As recited in our “Statement of Facts,” not repeated here, there was legally sufficient evidence to support this conviction. Such evidence included that the rental income from Cora Bell‘s house in Sidney was rarely deposited to her accounts, Dehning made transfers between accounts but withdrew cash in the exchange, and Dehning used Cora Bell‘s money to buy items for his benefit, including guns and computers. The trier of fact could reasonably conclude that such takings were done with intent to benefit Dehning without Cora Bеll‘s consent. And a defendant can be guilty of theft by unlawful taking, even if the defendant holds power of attorney. See State v. Rakosnik, 22 Neb. App. 194. We reject this assignment of error.
The Sentences Were Not Excessive.
Dehning claims that the district court erred in imposing excessive sentences and failing to sentence him to probation. We find no merit to this assignment of error.
[4,5] We have stated that when imposing a sentence, the sentencing court should customarily consider the defendant‘s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social аnd cultural background, (5) past criminal record or record
Dehning claims that his prior criminal history is minimal and that probation would be a more appropriate sentence, because it would permit Dehning to regain employment and pay restitution to Cora Bell. He was sentenced to 60 to 60 months in prison for count I, exploitation of a vulnerable adult, and 5 to 10 years in prison for count II, thеft by unlawful taking. Dehning does not assert that the sentences exceed the statutory limitations. We determine that the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Dehning as it did.
We have reviewed the explanations given by the sentencing court and find them to be consistent with controlling statutes and not an abuse of discretion. In denying probation, the court stated at the sentencing hearing that
a lesser sentence than imprisonment would depreciate from the seriousness of your offense or promote a disrespect for the law. . . . [T]here is a need for . . . correctional service or an institutionalization . . . and the . . . court finds that there is a substantial risk that you would engage in additional criminal conduct if you were placed on a period of probation.
With respect to Dehning‘s demeanor and the nature of the offenses, the court stated that
I was present for the entirety of your trial . . . . I listened tо the evidence, I listened to your testimony at the time of the trial and the jury reached a verdict that they reached. The issue among others for me in this particular case is what I think is the callousness with which you spent the
resources that your mother and your father had worked hard their entire lives to generate . . . I found your testimony at the time of the trial to be completely incredible which means that I didn‘t believe it.
The record includes a presentence investigation report and an update thereto. These show that Dehning‘s prior criminal history includes the following: a conviction of terroristic threats in 1980 with 3 years’ probation; a conviction for disturbing the peace in 1986; a conviction for cruelly mistreating an animal in 2004; a speeding ticket in 2004; and convictions in Keith County in 2014 for second degree assault, third degree domestic assault, tampering with a witness, and violation of a protection order, for which Dehning was sentenced to prison.
Given the facts and the court‘s proper considerations, the court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the sentences recited above. We find no merit to this assignment of error.
CONCLUSION
Dehning was convicted of exploitation of a vulnerable adult and theft by unlawful taking. The evidence was sufficient, and we affirm these convictions. The court‘s sentences were not an abuse of discretion. We affirm the convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.