*1 theory burglary. obtain conviction The defendant’s' a upon trial to seemed that convicted be he be would entry and because nothing forced there was no evidence a building at had been from removed apprehended. time constitute These facts did not was prac- Although burglary. a it the better defense to complete inquiry tice the factual to a into make more adequate plea, to show basis for record here factual basis that the trial court there a determined was plea. for the complains court did not
The defendant that the trial against privilege specifically self- advise him as to his right right by jury, to incrimination, his to trial of each confront then obtain a waiver accusers, rights. these trial advise the defendant court did length right jury concerning trial or to plead by the could force him to court; trial that no one guilty; accepted plea that no which was would be voluntary. defendant The criteria whether plea. understood relevant involved factors 2d 763. The Turner, plea volun- that the defendant’s was record here shows tarily understanding^ entered. the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed. appellant. Keck, appellee, Nebraska, v. Steven State 194 W. N. February 4,
Filed 1972. No. 38197. D.
Joseph Martin, appellant. James General, Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney Duggan, appellee. *2 Heard Spencer, Smith, before C. White;, JJ. and Clinton, McCown, On sentenced Steven pleas of court district Keck to 7 I, days as. follows: Count 2 5 for sale possession cannabis; of II, years Count of of cannabis; 2 Count to 5 years possession 2 to 5 “LSD,” IV, and Count lysergic diethylamide; acid sentences, years of concur- for sale were “LSD.” The of rent. Keck He excessiveness appeals. assigns error. 1971, March February offenses occurred in and The con- 2, 1971. and court sentenced Keck June on 28- 28-472.03, statutes were trolling sections former 472.04, 28-487, 28-498, S'upp., and S. 28-489(1), R. 28-497, than not less of They prescribed imprisonment 2 in charged nor more 5 for the offenses than years Keck. Counts III the information against IV of and a postsen- We and report summarize presentence and correctional classification of Keck the penal tence com- 21, school after complex. 1952, quit Born June on He has been one semester of pleting grade. the 10th regu- church who attend good terms with parents, He larly. single. is of- of Keck listed two conviction record prior and con- of liquor
fenses: in alcoholic possession Minor minor. A judge of a tributing delinquency to the in contempt held Keck court of limited had jurisdiction name. calling judge derogatory of court for Keck: “. . he accepts A . counselor on reported . . .. enthusiastically his education furthering idea of Prognosis: good.” is Keck read: “There evaluation
A psychological relationship evidence of an in emotional shallowness relatively to others. Keck does free of conflicts and anxiety difficulty. actually His show until in serious by concern behavior has been characterized lack of anxiety dangers potential punishments. and about readily by easy Keck further morals, characterized fluctuating circumvented conscience, ethical values. easily aggressive . . . He can become hostile guilt. behavior with little no sense of towards others or regulations Often he ... as social behaves did if apply reasoning powers to him. . . . His seem ade- quate clinical no defects in are evident. Prognosis questionable.” . . . but fair, may opin This court the sentence when in its reduce 1943; ion State v. sentence is R. 29-2308, excessive. (1970). Dixon, 143, 181 N. 2d 250 W. technique scaling penal A for deterrence of crime is Pope, sanctions. Neb. (1971). *3 psychological evaluation with all other cir- classify
cumstances is insufficient us Keck a dan- ferous offender. We decrease the on Counts years. and IV to The sen- on the four counts remain tences concurrent. So modi- fied, the is affirmed.
Affirmed as modified. dissents. J., concurring. opinion I concur in Defendant was (3), convicted and sentenced section under 28-472.04 Supp. penalty 1969, which fixed of not less than 2 years imprisonment. penalty nor more than has since been reduced to less than more than 5 nor years. Supp., See R. S. In 28-4,125, view statutory change pre- the fact that defendant’s good, record was vious posed appears reduction im- sentence justified.