Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

248 Neb. 817

State v. Nelson

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1995

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1995-11-17

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1997

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We have long held that the simultaneous repeal and reenactment of substantially the same statutory provisions is ordinarily construed to be an affirmation or continuation of the original provisions rather than a true repeal. When a statute has been repealed and substantially reenacted with additions or changes, the additions or changes are treated as amendments effective from the time the new statute goes into effect and not as a repeal in the strict or constitutional sense of the term. . . . Being substantially the same as § 39-669.07, § 60[-]6[,]196 represents an amendment of the statute, renumbered by the Revisor of Statutes. As such, appropriate convictions under § 39-669.07 can be used for sentence enhancement under § 60[-]6[,]196(2)(c).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 5 Neb. Ct. App. 485 - State v. Engleman

Relies on State v. Sundling

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-11-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

White, C.J.

¶1This case involves an appeal from a conviction of driving while under the influence of alcohol (DWI), third offense, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,196 (Reissue 1993). The defendant, Douglas F. Nelson, contends that his two prior convictions, imposed under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-669.07 (Cum. Supp. 1986 & Supp. 1987), cannot be used to enhance his DWI sentence under § 60-6,196. On appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, the court held that § 60-6,196 is a mere affirmance of § 39-669.07 and that the prior convictions can be used for enhancement purposes under § 60-6,196. State v. Nelson, 95 NCA No. 17, case No. A-94-794 (not designated for permanent publication). Nelson successfully petitioned this court for further review.

¶2Our recent decision in State v. Sundling, ante p. 732, 538 N.W.2d 749 (1995), is controlling. Sundling held that *818§ 60-6,196 is a mere affirmance and continuation of § 39-669.07 and that convictions under § 39-669.07 can be used to enhance the penalty for a DWI conviction under § 60-6,196. Therefore, we affirm.

¶3Affirmed.

/248/neb/817 · .json · Public domain