Richard L. Muniz appeals from his conviction by a jury of breaking and entering with the intent to inflict great bodily harm and from his sentence to a term of 18 months in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Cоmplex, which sentence included credit for time already served. Appellant assigns as error that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that the sentence wаs excessive. We affirm.
Taking the view most favorable to the State, the evidence shows the following facts. Prior to his conviction for the offense at issue here, appellant livеd for 7 months with a woman who was not his wife.. When this woman asked the appellant to move out, he reacted violently, choking her, but did eventually leave. After moving out, the appellant continually harassed the woman, primarily by telephoning her and writing notes, and occasionally by following her around town or attempting to enter her house. At one point, appellаnt broke the window to the woman’s automobile with a wrench, forcibly pulled her out of her autоmobile, and held her in his own auto *207 mobile for a while. On another occasion he threatened to kill her.-
The incident at issue occurred on May 4, 1978. That night, the woman was in her living room with a datе. Shortly after 11:30 p.m., appellant, having parked about 6 blocks away, cut the exterior telephone wires to the woman’s residence, kicked in the locked door and enterеd, carrying a gun which was cocked and had two bullets in it. In the course of the ensuing conversatiоn, appellant showed the woman the two bullets and said, “One for you and one for me.” The wоman testified she was frightened by appellant’s conduct and thought appellant intended tо kill her.
By 3 or 4 a.m., the woman and her date persuaded the appellant to unload and hand over the gun and leave peacefully. No one was physically harmed, and appellant gave the woman $50 to pay for the damage to her door.
Appellant was сonvicted of having violated section 28-532, R. R. S. 1943, which states in pertinent part: “Whoever willfully, maliciоusly and forcibly breaks and enters into any dwelling house . . . with intent to . . . commit any felony . . . shall be punished by imprisonment in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex not more than ten years nоr less than one year . . . .” The information charged that the specific intention with which the breаking was done was that of killing the woman, or assaulting her with intent to inflict great bodily injury.
The only element of the offense as to which there could be any doubt whatsoever is whether appellant had the requisite intent to commit a felony when he entered the woman’s home. Appellant claims he was carrying the gun because someone had fired upon and hit his automobile shortly before May 4, 1978. A deputy sheriff, who examined appellant’s automobile a week before trial in July 1978, did find a bullet hole in the right front fender.
*208
This court has frequently enunciated the rules applicable in this situation. The intent with which an act is done is rarely, if ever, susceptible of proof by direct evidence, but may be inferred from words or acts and the facts or circumstances surrоunding the act. State v. Ristau,
The evidence in this case was clearly sufficient to permit the jury to conclude the appellant had the requisite intent, and the first assignment of error is without merit.
This court has also stated often that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal unless thеre is an abuse of discretion. State v. Kerns,
Affirmed.