Background
Chad M. May entered no-contest pleas in two consolidated cases to distributing methamphetamine, a Class II felony. Under a global plea agreement, the State reduced the original charges and dismissed proceedings against May in two other district court cases. The charges arose from two methamphetamine deliveries to a confidential informant in December 2024.
The Adams County District Court sentenced May to concurrent terms of 20 to 22 years’ imprisonment and awarded 65 days of credit for time served in each case. May appealed, arguing that the sentences were excessive and that trial counsel was ineffective by misleading him about the likely outcome of the cases and failing to communicate meaningfully with him.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentences, which were within the statutory range of 1 to 50 years. The sentencing record showed that the district court considered the presentence investigation, May’s extensive criminal history, his mental-health and substance-use issues, his very high risk of recidivism, the nature of the methamphetamine distributions, and his lack of success on probation.
The court nevertheless found plain error in awarding the same 65 days of jail credit separately in both cases. Because the concurrent sentences were imposed contemporaneously, the credit could be applied only once against the aggregate terms. The court modified both sentencing orders accordingly.
The court rejected May’s claim that counsel falsely promised probation because his plea-colloquy answers refuted such a promise and, in any event, he could not establish prejudice after being advised that the court was not bound by counsel’s recommendations and could impose up to 50 years in each case. His separate allegation that counsel failed to communicate meaningfully was too vague to preserve an ineffective-assistance claim, and the court declined to consider an additional mental-health-related claim that was neither assigned nor argued.
Key Takeaways
- A sentence within the statutory range will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion, and a sentencing court need not expressly discuss every sentencing factor on the record.
- When multiple sentences are imposed contemporaneously, available jail credit applies once against the aggregate terms, even when the sentences run concurrently.
- An ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal must identify counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct with specificity, and a defendant’s plea-colloquy statements may defeat a claim that counsel promised a particular sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Nebraska’s aggregation rule for presentence jail credit and shows that an appellate court may correct an improper credit award as plain error even when neither party raises the issue. It also illustrates the importance of a complete plea colloquy and precisely framed ineffective-assistance assignments on direct appeal.