Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Perales

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided December 18, 1981No. 44292Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKrivosha, C.J.

I find that while I concur with the majority of the court in affirming the conviction in this case, I must dissent from the majority’s action in modifying the sentence imposed by the trial court. I believe that in doing so we unnecessarily add to the confusion. We have heretofore declared in a host of cases that this court will not reduce a sentence imposed by the trial court within statutory limits absent evidence of an abuse of discretion. See, State v. Bosak, 207 Neb. 693, 300 N.W.2d 201 (1981); State v. Kelly, 207 Neb. 295, 298 N.W.2d 370 (1980); State v. Hortman, 207 Neb. 393, 299 N.W.2d…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State v. PackettNebraska Supreme Court · 1980
  2. State v. KernsNebraska Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State v. HortmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1980
  4. State v. RobinsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1979
  5. State v. TiptonNebraska Supreme Court · 1980

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API