Summary
In State v. Rodman (1974), 192 Neb. 403, 222 N.W.2d 109, we stated: "It was within the discretion of the District Court to direct that sentences be served consecutively."
Summary of this case from State v. TweedyOpinion
Nos. 39416, 39417.
Filed October 3, 1974.
Criminal Law: Sentences. It is within the discretion of the District Court to direct that sentences imposed for separate crimes be served consecutively.
Appeals from the District Court for Lancaster County: DALE E. FAHRNBRUCH, Judge. Affirmed.
T. Clement Gaughan and Richard L. Goos, for appellant.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Terry R. Schaaf, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON, and BRODKEY, JJ.
The defendant was charged in separate informations with burglaries on May 19, 1973, and August 5, 1973. Upon pleas of guilty he was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to 3 years for the burglary on May 19, 1973, and to imprisonment for 1 to 3 years for the burglary on August 5, 1973. The defendant contends the sentences were excessive because they were consecutive and not concurrent.
The maximum sentences which could have been imposed would have been imprisonment for 10 years on each count. 28-532, R.R.S. 1943.
The defendant has one previous conviction for a felony. It was within the discretion of the District Court to direct that the sentences be served consecutively. See, In re Walsh, 37 Neb. 454, 55 N.W. 1075; Culpen v. Hann, 158 Neb. 390, 63 N.W.2d 157. The sentences which were imposed by the trial court were not excessive under the circumstances.
The judgments of the District Court are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.