State v. Johnson
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with felony escape. In an amended information, Defendant was also charged with being a habitual criminal. The trial court convicted Defendant of escape and sentenced him as a habitual criminal. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the habitual criminal statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, (2) the State’s motion to amend the information was untimely, and (3) his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not raise the alleged untimeliness of the State’s amendment to the information in the proceedings below, he waived that objection, and Defendant was not prejudiced when the trial court allowed the amendment; (2) the habitual criminal statutes do not violate the right to a jury trial or double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions; and (3) the application of the habitual criminal enhancement and the resulting sentence was neither excessive or disproportionate, nor cruel and unusual.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.