State v. Burns

CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the review panel
did not err in affirming the trial court’s dismissal. Therefore,
we affirm the review panel’s order in its entirety.
A ffirmed .
S tAte of N ebrASkA, Appellee , v .
S teveN v. burNS, AppellANt .
747 N.W.2d 635
Filed February 12, 2008. 	No. A-07-762.
This opinion has been ordered permanently published by order
of the Court of Appeals dated April 4, 2008.
1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law,
for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion
irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
2. Courts: Time: Appeal and Error. Where no timely statement of errors is filed
in an appeal from a county court to a district court, appellate review is limited to
plain error.
3. Criminal Law: Statutes. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction
that penal statutes are to be strictly construed.
4. ____: ____. Although penal statutes are strictly construed, they are given a sen-
sible construction in the context of the object sought to be accomplished, the evils
and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose sought to be served.
5. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordi-
nary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain
the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
6. Statutes. If the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end
of any judicial inquiry.
7. Motor Vehicles. Where a vehicle is equipped with two taillights, Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 60-6,219(6) (Reissue 2004) requires both taillights to give substantially normal
light output and to show red directly to the rear.
Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County, W illiAm b.
ZASterA, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for
Sarpy County, mAx kelch, Judge. Judgment of District Court
affirmed.
James E. Schaefer, of Gallup & Schaefer, for appellant.
630 	16 NEbRASkA AppELLATE REpORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:16 AM CST

Jon bruning, Attorney General, and George R. Love for
appellee.
iNbody, Chief Judge, and irWiN and cASSel, Judges.
cASSel, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Steven V. burns appeals from a district court judgment
affirming a county court conviction and judgment. He attacks
the denial of his motion to suppress, asserting that because
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,219 (Reissue 2004) authorizes a vehicle
to be equipped with “one or more” taillights, a vehicle hav-
ing two taillights, one of which is unilluminated, nonetheless
“shows red directly to the rear” and is in compliance with
§ 60-6,219. The lower courts correctly rejected burns’ argu-
ment, and we affirm.
bACkGROUND
The State filed a complaint in county court charging burns
with one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, .15
or over, and one count of vehicle light violation. burns filed a
motion to suppress, which the county court heard on December
28, 2006. The only issue was whether the deputy sheriff had
reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle burns was driving. The
deputy observed a vehicle traveling westbound on Giles Road
in Sarpy County, Nebraska, on September 20. He observed
that the vehicle displayed only one red light on the rear of the
vehicle. The vehicle was equipped with two taillights, on the
left and right, but the left taillight was not working. The deputy
performed a traffic stop and detected the odor of an alcoholic
beverage on burns’ breath. The county court overruled the
motion to suppress.
The State filed an amended complaint, dropping the “.15
or over” enhancement, and the matter was tried on stipulated
evidence. The State dismissed the vehicle light violation, and
the court found burns guilty of driving under the influence.
The county court sentenced burns. He timely appealed to the
district court, but filed no statement of errors. The district court
for Sarpy County affirmed.
STATE v. bURNS 	631
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 630

burns timely appeals to this court. pursuant to the authority
granted to this court under Neb. Ct. R. of prac. 11b(1) (rev.
2006), this case was ordered submitted without oral argument.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
burns’ sole assignment of error claims that the district court
erred in affirming the county court’s order overruling burns’
motion to suppress.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for
which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an inde-
pendent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by
the court below. State v. Griffin, 270 Neb. 578, 705 N.W.2d
51 (2005).
[2] Where no timely statement of errors is filed in an appeal
from a county court to a district court, appellate review is lim-
ited to plain error. Id.
ANALYSIS
burns’ argument relies upon § 60-6,219, which provides in
pertinent part:
(3) Every motor vehicle . . . shall be equipped with one
or more taillights, at the rear of the motor vehicle . . . ,
exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of at least
five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle.
. . . .
(6) It shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of
any motor vehicle to operate such vehicle upon a high-
way unless:
(a) The condition of the lights and electric circuit is
such as to give substantially normal light output;
(b) Each taillight shows red directly to the rear, the
lens covering each taillight is unbroken, each taillight
is securely fastened, and the electric circuit is free from
grounds or shorts.
[3,4] It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction
that penal statutes are to be strictly construed. State v. Gozzola,
273 Neb. 309, 729 N.W.2d 87 (2007). Although penal statutes
632 	16 NEbRASkA AppELLATE REpORTS

are strictly construed, they are given a sensible construction in
the context of the object sought to be accomplished, the evils
and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose sought
to be served. State v. Aguilar, 268 Neb. 411, 683 N.W.2d
349 (2004).
[5,6] Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary
meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation
to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain,
direct, and unambiguous. State v. Wester, 269 Neb. 295, 691
N.W.2d 536 (2005). If the language of a statute is clear, the
words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry. State
v. Rhea, 262 Neb. 886, 636 N.W.2d 364 (2001).
burns argues that because § 60-6,219(3) allows a vehicle
to be equipped with one taillight, a vehicle actually equipped
with two taillights need only have one in operation. He argues
that the provision of § 60-6,219(6)(b) requiring that “[e]ach
taillight shows red directly to the rear” does not impose a
requirement that both taillights be illuminated. We reject this
strained interpretation.
Even viewed in isolation, the plain and unambiguous mean-
ing of § 60-6,219(6)(b) that “[e]ach taillight shows red directly
to the rear” clearly requires the light source to be illuminated. A
taillight which is not operable cannot reasonably be understood
to “show” red directly to the rear. Moreover, § 60-6,219(6)(a)
requires “[t]he condition of the lights and electric circuit is such
as to give substantially normal light output.” In other words, the
light must be illuminated in the normal fashion.
[7] While it is lawful to have a vehicle designed for only
one taillight, burns’ vehicle was equipped with two taillights.
Where a vehicle is equipped with two taillights, the language
of § 60-6,219(6) requires both taillights to “give substantially
normal light output” and to “[show] red directly to the rear.” If
one of the taillights is not illuminated, it fails to comply with
both of these statutory requirements. It follows that burns was
committing a traffic violation, providing probable cause for the
traffic stop. See State v. Voichahoske, 271 Neb. 64, 709 N.W.2d
659 (2006) (traffic violation, no matter how minor, creates
probable cause to stop driver of vehicle).
STATE v. bURNS 	633
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 630

CONCLUSION
The lower courts did not err in rejecting burns’ incorrect
statutory interpretation. Therefore, we find no error, much less
plain error, in the rulings of the courts below.
A ffirmed .
terry l. W orley , AppellANt , v . robert p. houStoN, director
of the depArtmeNt of correctioNAl S erviceS, ANd roNAld
reithmuller , recordS AdmiNiStrAtor , AppelleeS.
747 N.W.2d 639
Filed April 15, 2008. 	No. A-07-151.
1. Prisoners: Sentences. pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,107(2) (Cum. Supp.
1996), the chief executive officer of a facility shall reduce the term of a commit-
ted offender by 3 months for each year of the offender’s term and pro rata for any
part thereof which is less than a year.
2. ____: ____. pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,107(3) (Cum. Supp. 1996), the
chief executive officer shall reduce the term of a committed offender up to an
additional 3 months for each year of the offender’s term and pro rata for any
part thereof which is less than a year upon participation in or completion of a
personal program.
3. ____: ____. pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,107 (Cum. Supp. 1996), the
total of all the reductions of the term of a committed offender shall be credited
from the date of sentence, which shall include any term of confinement prior to
sentence and commitment as provided pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,106
(Reissue 1999), and shall be deducted from the maximum term, to determine the
date when discharge from the custody of the state becomes mandatory.
4. Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and
evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
5. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, an
appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against
whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences deducible from the evidence.
6. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law, in con-
nection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent,
correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
7. Prisoners: Sentences. pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,107(2) (Cum. Supp.
1996), good time is credited at the time of a prisoner’s sentence and is based on
the prisoner’s maximum term.
634 	16 NEbRASkA AppELLATE REpORTS