Background
Jamal D. Carr appealed two consolidated cases arising from separate 2024 incidents. In the first case, Carr and co-perpetrator Rodney Ross committed two armed robberies at O’Reilly Auto Parts stores on July 14 and July 24, 2024, using a sawed-off shotgun. The second case involved a May 13, 2024 home burglary and assault on Demetric Rogers using a handgun at the residence of Dezarae Mann. Carr’s girlfriend Amuk James was involved in the burglary.
Pursuant to a global plea agreement, Carr pleaded no contest to attempted robbery (Class IIA felony) in the first case and attempted possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (Class II felony) and terroristic threats (Class IIIA felony) in the second case. The plea agreement resulted in dismissal of a third case charging Carr with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. The district court found a sufficient factual basis and accepted the pleas after determining Carr understood his rights and entered the pleas knowingly and voluntarily.
At sentencing, the court imposed 18-20 years for attempted robbery, to be served consecutively with 17-20 years for attempted possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and 3-3 years for terroristic threats (to be served consecutively to each other). Carr received credits for time served: 55 days in the first case and 288 days in the second case.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Carr’s convictions on all counts. On the voluntariness of pleas, the court rejected Carr’s argument that his pleas were involuntary because he was not informed of his right to counsel at the plea hearing. Following State v. Watkins precedent, the court held that the failure to inform Carr of his right to counsel did not invalidate the plea because Carr was represented by counsel at the hearing, confirmed he had adequate time to discuss the plea with his attorney, stated he was satisfied with counsel’s representation, and demonstrated understanding of the charges and penalties. Counsel also confirmed Carr was entering the plea freely, voluntarily, and knowingly.
On the excessive sentencing claims, the court held that Carr’s sentences fell within statutory limits and were supported by competent evidence. The court rejected Carr’s argument that his sentences were excessive compared to his co-perpetrator Ross, who received only 2 years imprisonment for aiding and abetting a felony (a Class IV felony). The court reasoned that comparisons to co-defendants are inappropriate; instead, each defendant’s sentence must be evaluated on its own merits considering factors including age, mentality, education, background, criminal history, motivation, nature of the offense, and violence involved. The sentencing judge’s observations of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude are also relevant.
The court identified plain error in the time-served credit calculation. Although the trial court awarded 288 days in the second case, the correct calculation was 244 days plus an additional 4 days agreed to by the State, totaling 248 days. Moreover, citing State v. Nelson (2025), the court held that when multiple sentences are imposed contemporaneously—whether consecutive or concurrent—all time-served credit must be applied once to the aggregate of all terms imposed, not separately to each case. The court therefore modified the sentences to award 303 days’ credit for time served against the aggregate of all terms in both cases combined.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to inform a defendant of the right to counsel at a plea hearing does not invalidate the plea if the defendant is represented by counsel, confirms adequate preparation time, and both defendant and counsel confirm the voluntary entry of the plea.
- Sentences within statutory limits are not excessive merely because a co-defendant received a lesser sentence; comparative sentencing is improper, and each defendant must be sentenced based on individualized factors.
- Time-served credit for multiple consecutive sentences must be calculated and applied once to the aggregate of all imposed terms, not apportioned separately to each case.
- Trial counsel’s failure to contest a factual basis issue prior to sentencing does not constitute ineffective assistance if the court considers the correction at sentencing.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important procedural safeguards in plea acceptances and sentencing in Nebraska. While trial courts must inform defendants of constitutional rights, this decision follows existing precedent allowing valid pleas despite omitted advisories when the defendant is represented and demonstrates voluntary entry. For practitioners, the decision reaffirms that appellate courts will not second-guess sentencing decisions based on disparities with co-defendants or collateral cases—each defendant’s sentence must be evaluated independently within statutory ranges using established sentencing factors.
Notably, the court identified and corrected plain error in how trial courts calculate and apply time-served credits in multi-case scenarios. The decision requires credits be applied to the aggregate sentence rather than separately to each case, which can significantly affect a defendant’s release date. This holding could affect how trial courts handle time-served calculations in consolidated or related cases going forward.