State v. TexelState v. Texel
Lead Opinion
Dеfendant-appellant, Douglas J. Texel, was charged in the county court with seven counts of promoting gambling in the first degree in violation of
On the basis of information from a variety of sources, including from a law enforcement officer believed to have the reputation of telling the truth, Fremont Police Det. Greg Chamberlain came to suspect that Texel was engaged in bookmaking activities both at his Fremont residence and at the Dugout Bar, a Fremont saloon in which Texel has an ownership interest. Chamberlain thereupon undertook a series of warrantless searches of the trash placed behind the bar, as well as the trash located at Texel’s residence. These searches, conducted at various times during the period from December 30, 1985, through November 11, 1986, produced evidence of gambling activities at both locations.
Texel moved that аll evidence obtained as the result of the November 17 search be suppressed. The county court suppressed the evidence obtained from the search of the bar, but refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of Texel’s residence and, subsequently, received it in evidence at the trial.
In connection with the first error he assigns to the county court, Texel argues that the search of his residence pursuant to the warrant issued November 17,1986, and seizure of the items discoverеd as a result thereof violated his rights “against unreasonable searches and seizures” provided by the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and art. I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution, and must therefore be suppressed. He rests the argument on the premise that the warrant wаs the product of the prior illegal warrantless searches of his residential trash. See Wong Sun v. United States,
The relevant evidence as to the constitutionality of the search and seizure in question is in conflict. According to Chamberlain, the residential trash bags had been positioned near the street curb for collection. However, one of Texel’s friends testified that he drove past or visited Texel’s residence once or twice weekly and had never seen trash bags placed near the curb, but had seen such in Texel’s carport. The parties stipulated that if Texel’s immediate neighbor were called as a witness, he would testify that he had never seen Texel place garbage near the curb, nor had he ever seen any garbage truck stop at Texel’s рroperty. Although the relevance is not clear to us, the parties further stipulated this witness would also testify that at some time between September and November of 1987, he saw a man rummaging through two or three garbage bags under Texel’s carport. It was additionally stipulated that a second neighbor would testify she had never seen Texel deposit garbage near the curb. Finally, Texel testified that he usually kept his residential garbage in trash bags in his basement, and remembered leaving one bag of trash in the carport. He stated that he never placed garbage near the curb, as he did not use a trash removal service. He removed the trash from his residence himself in his own pickup truck.
Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Greenwood, _ U.S. _,
Obviously, then, the crucial question with respect to Texel’s first assignment of error is whethеr Texel’s residential garbage had in fact been made accessible to the public by being placed near the street curb for collection, as claimed by Chamberlain, or was kept in Texel’s basement and carport, as claimed by Texel and corroborated by his friend and neighbors, and thus not made accessible to the public. The county court, as the trial court, elected to believe Chamberlain. Were we free to review this matter de novo on the record, we might conclude otherwise; however, we are required, as was the district court,, to uphold the trial court’s factual findings in ruling on a motion to suppress unless those findings are clearly wrong. State v. Price,
While it is true that the parties elected to present much of the evidence relevant to the issue by stipulation, there were witnesses who testified in person and whose credibility the trial court assessed. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the factual findings of the trial court are clearly wrong. That being so, the warrant cannot be said to have resulted from сonstitutionally impermissible prior warrantless searches. Texel’s first assignment of error is therefore without merit.
This brings us to the sentences and, more particularly, to the intermittent manner in which they are to be served. In State v. Jurgens,
On further reflection, we reject that portion of Jurgens which holds that an intermittent sentenсe is permitted if consented to by the defendant. As observed in State v. Kinney,
As the State has observed, widely varying the method of serving periods of incarceration increases the likelihood of uneven application of the law to various individuals in our society. Not only is a prisonеr entitled to pay his debt to society in one stretch, not in bits and pieces, see Segal v. Wainwright,
It should also be notеd that the intermittent nature of Texel’s sentences thwarts the good-time scheme embodied in
Any person sentenced to a city or county jail shall have his or her term reduced seven days for each twenty-one consecutive days during which he or she has nоt committed any breach of discipline or other violation of jail regulations. The reductions authorized by this section shall be granted at the end of each period of twenty-one days, with such periods to run consecutively from the date of confinеment following sentencing.
We thus determine the sentences imposed to be erroneous; each sentence is therefore vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for resentencing.
In view of that determination, we do not reaсh the question of whether sentences of 30 days’ incarceration for each offense, to be served consecutively, were excessive.
Affirmed in part, and in part reversed AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Concurrence Opinion
I agree with the court’s disposition of all issues in this case, but I dissent from the cоurt’s determination that it is not necessary to reach the question of the excessiveness of the sentence imposed on defendant. I think the sentence is excessive and the trial court should be so advised before resentencing defendant.
The prеsentence investigation shows that this 32-year-old, married defendant with a child has never before been found guilty of any criminal or traffic charge (misdemeanor or felony) either as a juvenile or as an adult, nor has he ever been arrested for any offense. He operates his own bar business, and has no history of alcohol or drug abuse. To impose on a first-time offender a bizarre sentence stretching over a 1-year period (which this court has determined is an erroneous sentence) is an abuse оf discretion, in my judgment, particularly when the sentencing judge relies, in part, on his belief that gambling “is not a victimless act.” Whether that statement is true or not, I do not believe that such a personally held concept should be used as a reason for such a lengthy sеntence for a first-offense, nonviolent crime. It is certainly within the knowledge of the sentencing judge that the State has officially sanctioned many forms of gambling; that, among other things, pickle parlors proliferate, resulting in the filing of lawsuits to protect the business interests in operating such parlors; and that one of the statutes under which defendant was prosecuted provides for punishment only for enterprises “not conducted pursuant to .. . the Nebraska Bingo Act, the Nebraska Pickle Card Lottery Act, [or] the Nebrаska Lottery and Raffle Act.” The voters of this State have recently authorized a constitutional amendment permitting interstate wagering in certain places.
It is clear that defendant has deliberately violated the laws of this State, but in my judgment, there is no reаson not to use the probation system, in a situation for which it was designed, to attempt to help this defendant straighten out his life, as was done in State v. Trahan, 229 Neb. 683,
If it were determined that probation was not appropriate, then 30-day concurrent sentences, together with the large fines imposed, are more than adequate to correct defendant’s conduct to conform to legal standards. If such probation or imprisonment did not lead defendant to correct his ways, then the draconian measures imposed might have some merit. The sentencing judge and the probation officer who recommended incarceration should know the severe impact of a relatively short jail term on a person who has never been involved at all in the criminal justice system. Similarly, they should know the effect of a lengthy sentence on this defendant and his dependents.
I would affirm defendant’s conviction, but remand the cause for resentencing on the grounds that the sentence, as imposed, is both erroneous and excessive.