The original opinion entered in this case may b© found
ante
p. 416,
Defendant was prosecutеd under section 28-450, R. R. S. 1943. That section provides that each failure to pay a separate installment of support money as provided in the divorce decree shall he a separate offense. Section 29-110, R. S. Supp., 1969, provides that one committing a felony, with certain exceptions not here applicable, may only be prosecuted within 3 years next following the commission of the offense. The complaint against defendant сharges a failure to pay a child suppоrt payment *557 accruing in May 1966. It was not filed until June 27, 1969. It is consequently obvious that the statute of limitations had run on the charge to which defendant entered а plea of guilty.
Whether or not a plea оf guilty waives the defense of the statute of limitations is not material here. The defendant, obviously without knowledge of the applicability of this defеnse, entered a plea of guilty. He then, before sentence, requested the appointment of counsel to represent him. This was denied and the denial renders it necessary to examine the consequences.
In this post conviсtion action the denial of counsel is assigned as error. We agree, as stated in our originаl opinion, that it was error. Had competent counsel been appointed he would undoubtedly have noted the availability of the defense that the statute of limitations had run and may have found it advisable to move for a withdrawal of thе plea of guilty. We have held that leave shоuld ordinarily be given to withdraw a plea of guilty if it was еntered by mistake or under a misconception of the nature of the charge; through a misunderstаnding as to its effect; through fear, fraud, or official misrepresentation; was made involuntarily for аny reason; or even where it was entered inаdvisedly, if any reasonable ground is offered for gоing to the jury. See, Jurgenson v. State, 166 Neb, 111,
In the presеnt instance, the plea of guilty may have been “inadvisable.” The failure to appoint an аttorney renders it necessary to set aside the sentence. This failure also prejudicially affected the right of the defendant to move fоr a withdrawal of his plea of guilty. It is for the defendаnt and his counsel to determine, in the light of other defenses, if any, whether a motion for withdrawal of the plea previously entered or other proceedings are advisable.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.