IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) STATE V. ALCANTARA NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E). STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, V. GERSON ALCANTARA, APPELLANT. Filed July 7, 2020. No. A-20-069. Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: KIMBERLY MILLER PANKONIN, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Allyson A. Mendoza for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Jordan Osborne for appellee. MOORE, Chief Judge, and RIEDMANN and ARTERBURN, Judges. MOORE, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Gerson Alcantara appeals from his plea-based convictions in the district court for Douglas County of attempted first degree sexual assault of a child and two counts of third degree sexual assault of a child. On appeal, Alcantara claims that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his sentences were excessive. We affirm. II. BACKGROUND Alcantara was originally charged in the district court with first degree sexual assault of a child, a Class IB felony, and two counts of third degree sexual assault of a child, Class IIIA felonies. In exchange for Alcantara’s plea of no contest, the State filed an amended information in which the first degree sexual assault charge was amended to attempted first degree sexual assault of a child, a Class II felony. The third degree sexual assault charges remained the same. -1- At the plea hearing, Alcantara was provided with a Nebraska court certified Spanish interpreter. In response to questions by the court, Alcantara indicated that he had been able to go over the police reports with his attorney and he was able to read them. Alcantara’s counsel stated that Alcantara was aware of what happened in the deposition that was taken. The court asked Alcantara whether he had any problems understanding any of the evidence in the case and he responded with “no.” The court advised Alcantara of the constitutional rights that he was giving up by entering a plea, and Alcantara indicated that he understood the rights that he was waiving and he still wished to enter pleas of no contest to the amended charges. The court then reviewed with Alcantara the charges, the elements to be proven for each charge, and the possible sentences; he again indicated that he understood. The court advised Alcantara that it could impose concurrent or consecutive sentences, and he indicated that he understood the difference. The court asked whether he understood that the sentencing decision was fully within the discretion of the court, and he responded affirmatively. Alcantara agreed that he had gone over the sentencing ranges with his attorney. The court asked Alcantara whether anyone had told him that by entering his pleas, he would “get a light sentence, be rewarded, or promised you anything” and Alcantara answered “no.” He further denied that anyone, including law enforcement, had offered him leniency to get him to plead. Alcantara answered affirmatively that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals