*1 However, equity we as a trial novo on record. de cognizant language are also of this court in Mid- Tech. Plains Education Mid-Plains Nebraska Assn. v. (1972), College, 2d N. W. wherein upon examining stated: we “Before facts appropriate decision is based, discuss scope of our review. An from Court of In- §§ dustrial is de 25- Relations triable novo in this court. 48-812,R. R. S. 1943. This not mean that does powerless we are examine the conclusions fact the lower Klassen, court. Wiese many 527. This court has held times that even superior position novo, when the case of the triable de original respected trier of fact is to be and ac- great weight.” corded We affirm the order of the Court of Industrial Relations this case. Larry Nebraska,
226 N. 2dW.
Filed March 1975. No. 39576. Hornstein, for G. Sr., B. and Bennett Morrison, Frank Attorney Douglas, Harold General, and Paul *2 for Salter, Heard before and Brodkey,
Per curiam. resentencing. The defendant is an from a 1 2 originally to for to was years sentenced being years an ha- 30 and 20 to 214 121, In 191 Neb. bitual criminal. State v. appeal, held sentences were 376, a direct both by illegal, statute, of no force to and be “unauthorized the cause vacated and and effect.” sentences were resentencing. remanded to the District Court imprison- Upon to remand defendant was the sentenced has 30 The defendant ment for 20 to and fined $1. again appealed imposed vio- sentence contends the and against jeop- provisions the double lated constitutional ardy and was excessive. jeopardy provisions against constitutional multiple against prosecutions
protect multiple and both punishments v. North the same offense. Carolina 2072, 656; 23 L. Ed. 2d Pearce, 711, S. S. Ct. U. a Jones, 499, But, In re 35 Neb. N. W. 468. where by imposed, ap not an authorized law has been sentence pellate court remand the cause to with directions impose though part the a even a of in lawful sentence State, served. In v. valid sentence been McCormick 237, held: a 505, court “Where guilty prisoner charge, a been found on only appears the error that on the and the legal pronounce judgment to failure of the court a against proper practice, him, the and this court has setting power, the after aside void or the erroneous judgment, to the case and if accused, remand sen- the suspended, court, district with not the tence has been judgment on the verdict in the to render instructions by provided law. manner penitentiary the under a or er-
“Confinement in void of accused sentence, roneous because failure pen- suspension during obtain a of his sentence dency proceedings part error, is in by sense a no legal sentence; a rendition and execution of legal judgment, is not twice the accused execution punished Murphy See, also, offense.” for the same 155, Massachusetts, 639, 711; 177U. S. 20 S. Ct. 44 L. Ed. Bonner, 242, 323, 149; re 151 U. S. S. Ct. 38 L. Ed. States, 160, 645, U. Ct. Bozza United 67 S. Fountaine, 818; State v. 199 Kan. 430 P. 2d Ed. 235; State, 542; Freeman v. 87 Idaho 392 P. 2d ex Boner v. Boles, rel. 148 Va.W. 137 S. E. 2d imposed invalid, sentence first the sen- imposed tence after remand does not violate the con- *3 prohibition against jeopardy. stitutional age. The defendant is now 26 His record of juvenile misconduct commenced 1957. in In 1962he was Boys Training attempted committed School for robbery involving of a use stolen rifle. Paroled in 1963 burglary, shoplifting, his record shows six arrests for larceny, again and similar offenses until he was com- Training Boys mitted to the in School 1964. burglary,
As an adult he been convicted of re- ceiving property, Dyer stolen and violation of the Act. in this case involved use of checks stolen burglary. a offenses His record shows arrests for a number prosecution. there no provides imprisonment habitual act term of not less years. than 10 nor more than 60 Supp., § 29-2221,R. S. 1972. view of the defendant’s past sentence to for 20 to 30 years was not excessive. the defendant’s attitude society changed, suggested by toward as his counsel resentencing, proper at the time of authorities has demonstrated the defendant when leniency extend rehabilitation. interest is affirmed. District Court The judgment ' stated in his dis- for the reasons dissents in State senting opinion 2d 376. An H. Administrator with Will Sherwood,
William
Floyd
Brown,
deceased,
Tilson
nexed of the Estate
Bonding Company,
Merchants Mutual
a corporation,
. Brennan, Jr., and C. L. Fitz- William Robinson for Brown, Strom, Barmettler, & Leahy, Schorr gerald, *4 Person, Person, Dier & J.,
Heard before Newton, is an action to recover on bond of a guardian.