A-24-099, State v. Shawn M. Howell (Appellant)
Colfax County, District Court, Judge Christina M. Marroquin
Attorney for Appellant: Erik C. Klutman (Sipple, Hansen, Emerson, Schumacher, Klutman & Valorz, LLC)
Attorneys for Appellee: Michael T. Hilgers and Austin Relph (Nebraska Attorney General’s Office)
Criminal Action: Use of a Deadly Weapon to Commit a Felony and Assault in the First Degree
Action Taken by Trial Court: A jury found Shawn M. Howell guilty of two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony (Class IC felony) and two counts of assault in the first degree (Class II felony). The district court sentenced him to not less nor more than 10 years’ imprisonment on each firearm conviction (counts 1 and 2) and to not less than 1 nor more than 5 years’ imprisonment on each assault conviction (counts 3 and 4). Count 1 was to run consecutively to count 3; count 2 was to run consecutively to count 4. Counts 1 and 2 were to run concurrently to each other and counts 3 and 4 were to run concurrently to each other. All sentences imposed were to run concurrently to a separate sentence already being served by Howell at the time. Thirteen days after sentencing, the State filed a motion to reconsider Howell’s sentence on the basis that it was partially invalid. The court granted the motion and vacated Howell’s original sentence. It subsequently resentenced Howell to not less than 8 nor more than 20 years’ imprisonment on each firearm conviction and to not less than 1 nor more than 5 years’ imprisonment on each assault conviction. Counts 1 and 2 now run consecutively to each other and any other sentence currently being served. Counts 3 and 4 now run concurrently to each other and to the other sentence currently being served.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Howell assigns that the district court erred in: (1) excluding evidence of threats made by Virgil and Smith to Howell; (2) admitting exhibits 174 and 175 into evidence; (3) allowing officer testimony about bullet trajectory and admitting related exhibits into evidence; (4) giving a supplemental response to a question about Jury Instruction No. 14; and (5) vacating his original sentence. Howell also assigns that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions.