86-544
IN T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F
NEBRASKA
if. ^j-^-.JIf 'J.'.ySTATE OF
,.i "'C, ];.,
NEBRASKA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
V.
GLENN P .
.. - -
-
-
v-
KALEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
BUFFALO COUNTY, NEBRASKA
OF
Honorable Dewayne Wolf
District Judge
BRIEF OF
APPELLANT
Charles D . Brewster
BUTLER, VOIGT & BREWSTER
Attorneys at Law
R o v a r P a r k #14 - P . O . B o x 1184
Kearney, Nebraska
68848
Phone:
(308) 234-5524
Attorney for Appellant
V> < S - -
•
litis 2 i 2 .
Clerk
INDEX
S t a t e m e n t of the C a s e
A . N a t u r e of t h e C a s e
B . T h e I s s u e s A c t u a l l y T r i e d in t h e C o u r t
C . How the Issues Were Decided
1
Below
A s s i g n m e n t s of E r r o r
1
P r o p o s i t i o n s of L a w
2
S t a t e m e n t of F a c t s
3
Argument
5
Conclusion
7
CASES
CITED
Boykin v . Alabama,
395 U . S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 , 89 S . C t . 1 7 0 9 , 23 L . E d . 2d 274
Gagnon v . Scarpelli,
4 1 1 U . S . 7 7 8 , 93 S . C t . 1756
(1969)
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 36 L . E d . 2d 656
Johnson v . Zerbst,
304 U . S . 4 5 8 , 4 6 4 , 58 S . C t . 1 0 1 9 , 82 L . E d . 1 4 6 1 ( 1 9 3 8 )
3, 6
2, 3, 5, 6
3, 6
Morrissey v. Brewer,
408 U . S . 4 7 1 , 92 S . C t . 2 5 9 3
( 1 9 7 2 ) , 33 L . E d . 2d 4 8 4
2, 3, 5, 6
S ts t s v
F6 rr 6 6
207 Neb." 5 9 3 , 2 9 9 N . W . 2 d 777
(1980)
2, 3, 5, 6
State v . K a r t m a n ,
192 N e b . 8 0 3 , 224 N . W . 2 d 753
(1975)
2, 3, 5
STATUTES
Nebraska
Revised Statute
CITED
§29-2267 ( R e i s s u e
1943)
3
STATEMENT OF THE
A.
N a t u r e of the
CASE
Case
This is an a p p e a l by the D e f e n d a n t , Glenn P . K a l e y , from
o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of B u f f a l o C o u n t y r e v o k i n g
the
D e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n a n d s e n t e n c i n g h i m to a t e r m in t h e
P e n a l and C o r r e c t i o n a l
B.
Nebraska
Complex.
T h e I s s u e s A c t u a l l y T r i e d in t h e C o u r t
Below
T h e i s s u e s a c t u a l l y t r i e d in the C o u r t b e l o w a r e a s
1.
the
follows:
The s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence at the f i n a l h e a d i n g
on the affidavit and complaint charging
"Probation
held
Revocation"
(ST4-5) .
2.
T h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e p r o c e d u r e f o l l o w i n g
the filing
the S t a t e ' s c o m p l a i n t a n d a f f i d a v i t f o r " P r o b a t i o n R e v o c a t i o n "
p r i o r to t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g
C.
The District
A p r i l 1 8 , 1985
of
and
(ST4-5).
How the Issues Were
Decided
C o u r t r e v o k e d the o r d e r of p r o b a t i o n e n t e r e d
( S T 2 ) and sentenced the Defendant for the
on
felony
c r i m e o f d e l i v e r y of a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e to a t e r m o f n o t
less
t h a n o n e n o r m o r e t h a n f o u r y e a r s in the N e b r a s k a P e n a l a n d
C o r r e c t i o n a l C o m p l e x w i t h c r e d i t g i v e n f o r 30 d a y s
served while on p r o b a t i o n
(T6).
ASSIGNMENTS OF
1.
ERROR
T h e C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t p r o v i d i n g the D e f e n d a n t w i t h a
preliminary hearing
p r i o r to t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g w h e n h e
s e n t e n c e d to a t e r m o f
2.
previously
was
imprisonment.
T h e C o u r t e r r e d in r e v o k i n g t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n
and
s e n t e n c i n g h i m to a t e r m of i m p r i s o n m e n t i n the N e b r a s k a P e n a l a n d
Correctional
Complex.
-2-
PROPOSITIONS
OF LAW
I.
A p e r s o n charged w i t h a v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n has a r i g h t
a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g r e a s o n a b l y n e a r the p l a c e of t h e
violation o r his
to
alleged
arrest.
S t a t e v . K a r t m a n , 192 N e b . 8 0 3 , 224 N . W . 2 d 7 5 3
S t a t e v . F e r r e e , 207 N e b . 5 9 3 , 299 N . W . 2 d 777
(1975).
(1980).
M o r r i s s e y v . B r e w e r , 4 0 8 U . S . 4 7 1 , 92 S . C t . 2 5 9 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 33
L . E d . 2d 4 8 4 .
G a g n o n v . S c a r p e l l i , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 7 8 , 93 S . C t . 1756
L . E d . 2d 6 5 6 .
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 36
II.
A p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h a v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n is e n t i t l e d
w r i t t e n n o t i c e of t h e c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t e d a n d
conduct of that person w h i c h v i o l a t e d those c o n d i t i o n s
to
the
of
probation.
S t a t e v . K a r t m a n , 192 N e b . 8 0 3 , 224 N . W . 2 d 753
S t a t e v . F e r r e e , 207 N e b . 5 9 3 , 2 9 9 N . W . 2 d 777
(1975).
(1980).
M o r r i s s e y v . B r e w e r , 4 0 8 U . S . 4 7 1 , 92 S . C t . 2 5 9 3 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 33
L . E d . 2d 4 8 4 .
G a g n o n v . S c a r p e l l i , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 7 8 , 93 S . C t . 1756
L . E d . 2d 6 5 6 .
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 36
III.
T h e r e v o c a t i o n of a p r o b a t i o n m u s t be b a s e d u p o n c l e a r
and
c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p r o b a t i o n e r v i o l a t e d t e r m s of
his
p r o b a t i o n , a n d s u c h e v i d e n c e m u s t r e l a t e to t h e c o n d i t i o n s
of
p r o b a t i o n a l l e g e d to h a v e b e e n v i o l a t e d by t h e p r o b a t i o n e r a n d
which the p r o b a t i o n e r has r e c e i v e d prior w r i t t e n notice and
afforded a preliminary
hearing.
for
been
-3-
S t a t e v . K a r t m a n , 192 N e b . 8 0 3 , 224 N . W . 2 d 753
S t a t e v . F e r r e e . 2 0 7 N e b . 5 9 3 , 2 9 9 N . W . 2 d 777
(1975).
(1980).
M o r r i s s e y v . B r e w e r , 4 0 8 U . S . 4 7 1 , 92 S . C t . 2 5 9 3
L . E d . 2d 4 8 4 .
( 1 9 7 2 ) , 33
G a g n o n v . S c a r p e l l i , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 7 8 , 93 S . C t . 1756
L . E d . 2d 6 5 6 .
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 36
§29-2267 R . R . S .
1943.
IV.
A p r o b a t i o n e r d o e s n o t w a i v e h i s r i g h t to a
hearing
preliminary
p r i o r to h i s f i n a l p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g
b e c a u s e h e f a i l s to r e q u e s t
simply
one.
S t a t e v . F e r r e e , 2 0 7 N e b . 5 9 3 , 2 9 9 N . W . 2 d 777
(1980).
B o y k i n v . A l a b a m a , 3 9 5 U . S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 , 89 S . C t . 1 7 0 9 , 23
E d . 2d 274 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .
L.
J o h n s o n v . Z e r b s t , 3 0 4 U . S . 4 5 8 , 4 6 4 , 58 S . C t . 1 0 1 9 , 82
E d . 1461 ( 1 9 3 8 ) .
L.
STATEMENT OF
FACTS
On J a n u a r y 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 , G l e n n P . K a l e y e n t e r e d a p l e a of
guilty
in t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f B u f f a l o C o u n t y , N e b r a s k a to o n e c o u n t
delivery of a controlled
substance, a Class III Felony.
accepted the D e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a , approved the plea bargain
to t h e C o u r t a n d o r d e r e d a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n
The
of
Court
described
(T3).
O n A p r i l 1 8 , 1 9 8 5 , t h e D e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d in t h e
District
C o u r t o f B u f f a l o C o u n t y f o r the p u r p o s e s of s e n t e n c i n g .
The
D e f e n d a n t w a s p l a c e d o n p r o b a t i o n f o r a t e r m of t h r e e y e a r s
with
the u s u a l c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n , p l u s h e w a s to s e r v e 30 d a y s
in
j a i l , r e c e i v e a n a l c o h o l a n d d r u g e v a l u a t i o n a n d w a s o r d e r e d to
pay
$ 2 0 0 . 0 0 r e s t i t u t i o n p l u s the c o s t s of t h e a c t i o n
(T5).
-4-
On t h e 1 8 t h d a y o f S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 8 5 t h e C o u n t y A t t o r n e y
Buffalo County filed an a f f i d a v i t and complaint requesting
p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n f o r the D e f e n d a n t
(ST4-5).
A bench
of
a
warrant
w a s i s s u e d f o r t h e a r r e s t of t h e D e f e n d a n t on O c t o b e r 2 8 , 1 9 8 5
the D e f e n d a n t w a s a r r e s t e d o n A p r i l 2 9 , 1986 p u r s u a n t to t h a t
warrant
and
bench
(ST10-11).
On M a y 2 1 , 1 9 8 6 t h e D e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d pro se b e f o r e
Honorable Dewayne W o l f , Buffalo
County District Judge.
the
At
t i m e , the D e f e n d a n t made a p p l i c a t i o n for court appointed
that
counsel
a n d t h e C o u r t a p p o i n t e d the B u f f a l o C o u n t y P u b l i c D e f e n d e r
represent him
to
(22:1-25:3, T6).
On J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 6 t h e f o r m a l f i n a l h e a r i n g on t h e c o m p l a i n t
affidavit charging
the D e f e n d a n t ' s v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n w a s
before the D i s t r i c t Court ( T 6 ) .
At that h e a r i n g , State
been
p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n h e h a d b e e n a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e
r e p o r t e d to h i m o n t w o o c c a s i o n s
for restitution or court costs
a drug and a l c o h o l evaluation
( 2 8 : 2 0 ) , had
held
Probation
O f f i c e r K e n t L i l l y t e s t i f i e d t h a t s i n c e the D e f e n d a n t h a d
t h e i n f l u e n c e o f a l c o h o l in B u f f a l o C o u n t y
and
under
only
( 2 9 : 1 4 ) , had not made any
payments
( 3 0 : 1 7 ) , and had not participated
(31:4-16).
T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t the D e f e n d a n t w a s n o t a
suitable
candidate for the continuation of the probation and revoked
p r o b a t i o n o r d e r of A p r i l 1 8 , 1 9 8 5 .
The District Court
the
then
s e n t e n c e d t h e D e f e n d a n t to a t e r m of n o t l e s s t h a n o n e n o r m o r e
f o u r years in the N e b r a s k a P e n a l and C o r r e c t i o n a l C o m p l e x
c r e d i t f o r 30 d a y s p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d in t h e B u f f a l o C o u n t y
(50:1-9, T6).
in
with
Jail
-5-
ARGUMENT
T h e D e f e n d a n t , G l e n n P . K a l e y , w a s a r r e s t e d on A p r i l 2 9 , 1 9 8 6
p u r s u a n t to a b e n c h w a r r a n t i s s u e d by the D i s t r i c t C o u r t b a s e d o n a
complaint and affidavit charging
10-11).
the v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n
The Defendant was brought before the Court for a
(ST4-5,
final
h e a r i n g o n t h e r e v o c a t i o n of h i s p r o b a t i o n o n J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 6
w h e r e u p o n the District Court revoked his p r o b a t i o n and
sentenced
h i m to a t e r m of o n e to f o u r y e a r s in the N e b r a s k a S t a t e P e n a l a n d
>
Correctional Complex.
A t no t i m e b e t w e e n t h e t i m e o f
the
D e f e n d a n t ' s arrest on the bench warrant and the f i n a l h e a r i n g
t h e r e a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g a s r e q u i r e d by
was
law.
T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t s o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d of t h e S t a t e
Nebraska have long held that a Defendant charged with a
of h i s p r o b a t i o n h a s a r i g h t to a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g
of
violation
reasonably
near the place of the a l l e g e d violation or the a r r e s t .
In
the
c a s e s of M o r r i s s e y v . B r e w e r , 408 U . S . 4 7 1 , 92 S . C t . 2 5 9 3
(1972),
33 L . E d . 2d 4 8 4 ; G a g n o n v . S c a r p e l l i , 4 1 1 U . S . 7 7 8 , 93 S . C t . 1756
( 1 9 7 3 ) , 36 L . E d . 2d 6 5 6 ; S t a t e v . K a r t m a n , 192 N e b . 8 0 3 , 2 2 4
N.W.2d 753
( 1 9 7 5 ) ; S t a t e v . F e r r e e , 207 N e b . 5 9 3 , 2 9 9 N . W . 2 d
( 1 9 8 0 ) , the courts have c o n s i s t e n t l y held that a person
w i t h t h e v i o l a t i o n o f h i s p r o b a t i o n is e n t i t l e d to a
hearing on the a l l e g a t i o n s
charged
preliminary
c h a r g i n g the s p e c i f i c v i o l a t i o n s .
p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s g u a r a n t e e d by t h e c a s e s c i t e d a b o v e a r e
to i n s u r e t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s
777
r i g h t to due p r o c e s s of l a w .
The
necessary
Insomuch
t h e r e w a s no p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g w h a t s o e v e r i n t h i s m a t t e r , t h e r e
h a s c l e a r l y b e e n a v i o l a t i o n of the D e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s .
In
as
-6-
t h e c a s e of S t a t e v . F e r r e e , s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t
stated:
"A p r o b a t i o n e r is e n t i t l e d to t w o h e a r i n g s , 'one a
p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g a t t h e t i m e of h i s a r r e s t a n d
d e t e n t i o n to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e c a u s e
to b e l i e v e t h a t he h a s c o m m i t t e d a v i o l a t i o n of h i s
( p r o b a t i o n ) , and the o t h e r a somewhat more
c o m p r e h e n s i v e h e a r i n g p r i o r to t h e m a k i n g o f the f i n a l
revocation decision.'
Gagnon v . Scarpelli, supra at
7 8 1 - 8 2 . S e e , a l s o , M o r r i s s e y v . B r e w e r , s u p r a at
484-89."
I d . at 5 9 6 .
T h e Court further quoted the Gagnon case w i t h this
language:
"At the preliminary h e a r i n g , a p r o b a t i o n e r o r parolee
i s e n t i t l e d to n o t i c e o f t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of
p r o b a t i o n o r p a r o l e , a n o p p o r t u n i t y to a p p e a r a n d to
p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e in h i s o w n b e h a l f , a c o n d i t i o n a l r i g h t
to confront adverse w i t n e s s e s , an i n d e p e n d e n t decision
m a k e r , a n d a w r i t t e n r e p o r t of t h e h e a r i n g . "
I d . at
596.
In the instant case, the Defendant, Glenn P . K a l e y , was
not
a f f o r d e d a preliminary hearing and was thus denied a l l of
the
r i g h t s as described in these c a s e s .
District
It w a s e r r o r f o r t h e
C o u r t to r e v o k e the D e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n w i t h o u t the
Defendant
b e i n g a f f o r d e d t h e r i g h t o f a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g p r i o r to
final
the
hearing.
The record reflects that the Defendant never requested a
p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g at a n y s t a g e of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , n o r did
D e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l o b j e c t a t t h e f i n a l h e a r i n g b e c a u s e of t h e
of the preliminary h e a r i n g .
lack
T h e c a s e s of B o y k i n v . A l a b a m a , 3 9 5
U . S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 , 89 S . C t . 1 7 0 9 , 23 L . E d . 2d 274
(1969), Johnson
v.
Z e r b s t , 3 0 4 U . S . 4 5 8 , 4 6 4 , 58 S . C t . 1 0 1 9 , 82 L . E d . 1 4 6 1
(1938),
and State v . Ferree, s u p r a , provide that a Defendant need
not
specifically
request a preliminary hearing when charged with a
v i o l a t i o n of his p r o b a t i o n .
stated:
In S t a t e v . F e r r e e , s u p r a , t h e
Court
-7-
" F o r a w a i v e r o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s to be v a l i d
u n d e r t h e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e , it m u s t be an
' i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n g u i s h m e n t or a b a n d o n m e n t of a k n o w n
right or privilege'."
Id. 598.
T h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n
from the record that the Defendant
e v e r e v e n i n f o r m e d o f h i s r i g h t to a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , l e t
an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t h e w a i v e d
alone
it.
The District Court's o r d e r revoking the Defendant's
a n d s e n t e n c i n g h i m to a t e r m in t h e N e b r a s k a P e n a l a n d
C o m p l e x s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d .
was
probation
Correctional
The revocation procedure used by
State did not meet the m i n i m u m s t a n d a r d set forth u n d e r
the
the
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Laws of the U n i t e d States and the State of
Nebraska.
T h e f a i l u r e of the C o u r t to a f f o r d the D e f e n d a n t w i t h h i s
due
p r o c e s s r i g h t s is c l e a r l y r e v e r s i b l e
error.
CONCLUSION
P u r s u a n t to t h e f a c t s o f t h i s m a t t e r a n d t h e a r g u m e n t s
f o r t h b y the D e f e n d a n t , w e r e s p e c t f u l l y
request that this
Court
r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r a n d s e n t e n c e e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on
3 , 1986 and d i s m i s s the c o m p l a i n t charging v i o l a t i o n of
Respectfully
set
June
probation.
submitted
GLENN P . KALEY,
Appellant
BUTLER, VOIGT & BREWSTER
Attorney-s at L a w
R o v a r P a r k #14 - P . O . B o x
K e a r n e y , NE
68848
Phone:
308-234-5524
1184