State v. SuffrediniState v. Suffredini
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Caporale
Dеfendant, Peter Wade Suffredini, pled no contest to second degree murder in violation of
Defendant was originally charged with first degree murder in violation of
Before accepting the defendant’s pleas, the county attorney, upon the trial judge’s inquiry, stated that on April 27, 1986, the body of Samuel Cоker was found immediately outside the door of the men’s restroom at a rest area along the Interstate in Lincoln County, Nebraska. The victim had been shot five times.
A witness at the scene told law enfоrcement officers that a man in his early 20s had recently left the area in an automobile bearing a California license plate. An automobile matching the description of the one givеn by the witness was found at a motel, and a license plate check revealed that it had been stolen. A check of the registration at the motel disclosed that a man matching the descriрtion given by the witness had checked into the motel that
Further investigation developed that the victim had possessed a personalizеd billfold, made by his sister, on which the name “Sam” had been imprinted, and that the victim had been paid shortly before he was killed and would have been carrying between $180 and $240. Defendant had $188 in his possession when hе was found by the officers and had paid approximately $20 in cash for the motel room. The cashless personalized billfold was found in Lincoln County. Located beside the billfold were five spent сases for .22-caliber ammunition. The Nebraska State Patrol subsequently determined that the .22-caliber cases found alongside the billfold had been fired from the weapon found in defendant’s possession.
Defendant told the court he did not contest any of the foregoing statements.
Defendant’s argument in connection with his first assignment of error, that he should have been permitted to withdraw his no contest рleas, rests on five grounds, each of which was specifically found not to exist by the trial court. In reviewing this assignment of error we bear in mind that the withdrawal of a plea is a matter addressed to the disсretion of the trial court and that the trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Nearhood, 223 Neb. 768, 393 N.W.2d 530 (1986).
The first ground asserted by defendant is that the pleas are not supported by the facts. Since there is no question but that a factual basis for a plea may be determined from the statements of the county attorney,
State
v.
Irish,
223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986), this assertion is without merit. The county attorney’s uncontradictеd recitation of the facts underlying the charges supports beyond a reasonable doubt the conclusions that defendant intentionally caused the victim’s death as required for a violation of
Next, defendant asserts that he did not understand the ramifications of entering no contest pleas. The trial judge explained to defendant the elements the State was requirеd to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in each crime charged and, by examining defendant, demonstrated that defendant understood the nature of the crimes with which he was charged, as wеll as his rights to the assistance of counsel, to confront the witnesses against him, to a trial by jury, and his privilege against self-incrimination. The possible penalties for each offense were read to the defendant, and, as we have already seen, there was a factual basis for the pleas. Thus, the arraignment at which the subject pleas were entered complies fully with the requirements of State v. Irish, supra. The record therefore establishes that defendant’s no contest pleas were entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly.
Defendant’s third ground rests on the claim that he did not understand that the sentences imposed on each count could be required to be served consecutively. It is to be noted that there is no requirement that a defendant be informed that a sentence which nеed not be imposed consecutively to any other may
nonetheless, in the sentencing judge’s discretion, be so imposed.
State
v.
Irish, supra.
Whether a defendant has a right to be told of the mandatory consecutive nature of a sentence imposed for the use of a firearm to commit a felony,
Defendant’s fourth ground is that the State made no concession in the plea bargain because it had “no case” of first degree murder. Not only does defendant not cite any authority which requires that a plea bargain be supported by a concession on the pаrt of the State, but defendant’s premise that he received no concession is wrong. One of the ways to commit first degree murder is to kill while in the perpetration of a robbery.
As to the fifth and final ground in connection with the first assignment of error, defendant urges that the plea does not meet “the ends of justice.” Such a claim is so vague and indefinite as to have no meaning. The controlling rule is that after the entry of a plea of no contest but before sentencing, á court should allow the defendant to withdraw his оr her plea for any fair and just reason, provided the prosecution would not be substantially prejudiced by its reliance upon the plea. State v. Nearhood, 223 Neb. 768, 393 N.W.2d 530 (1986); State v. Dixon, 223 Neb. 316, 389 N.W.2d 307 (1986); State v. Copple, 218 Neb. 837, 359 N.W.2d 782 (1984). As we have seen, defendant has not only not shown аny “fair and just” reason to withdraw his plea, he has shown no reason at all. Under that circumstance it certainly cannot be said the trial court abused its discretion in refusing defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.
That brings us to defendant’s second assignment of error, the claim that the sentence is excessive. Defendant argues that he should be treated leniently because he pled no contest. While it is true that a more severe punishment cannot be exacted because a defendant pleads not guilty and puts the State to the expense of a trial, State v. Winsley, 223 Neb. 788, 393 N.W.2d 723 (1986), a defendant nonetheless hаs no absolute right to a reduced sentence because he saves the State the expense of going to trial. See, for example, State v. Copple, supra, wherein defendant’s no contest plea did not disturb this сourt’s longstanding maxim that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal, absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Cain, 223 Neb. 796, 393 N.W.2d 727 (1986).
Although the 26-year-old defendant has not previously been convicted оf a felony, there are New York warrants outstanding against him for grand larceny, forgery, and falsifying business records as the result of the theft and sale of his girlfriend’s automobile. However, irrespective of defendant’s past record, the crimes which are the subject of this review were sufficiently senseless, violent, and brutal to more than justify the sentences imposed.
Since defendant’s assignments of error are not sustained by the record, the judgments and sentences of the district court are affirmed.
Affirmed.