In re Interest of Sylvester L.

given by the State; however, the district court did not inform
Hammel, at any time, that the court was not bound by any sen-
tencing recommendation.
Under the specific facts of this particular case, because the
district court failed to accurately advise Hammel of the range
of penalties for the crime, i.e., that the district court was not
bound by the plea agreement made with the State, we find
that Hammel was not adequately advised as to the complete
range of penalties available to the district court for sentenc-
ing. Therefore, Hammel’s no contest plea could not have been
entered freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See
State v. Irish, supra. Consequently, we must remand the cause
to the district court with directions to vacate Hammel’s convic-
tion and sentence and to hold further proceedings.
Given our resolution of this assignment of error, we need
not address Hammel’s remaining assignment of error regarding
excessive sentence. See Papillion Rural Fire Prot. Dist. v. City
of Bellevue, 274 Neb. 214, 739 N.W.2d 162 (2007) (appellate
court is not obligated to engage in analysis which is not needed
to adjudicate controversy before it).
R eveRsed and Remanded with diRections.
in Re inteRest of sylvesteR l.,
a child undeR 18 yeaRs of age .
state of nebRaska , appellee , v. sylvesteR l.,
appellee , and depaRtment of health
and human seRvices , appellant.
770 N.W.2d 669
Filed July 21, 2009. 	No. A-08-1188.
1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases
de novo on the record and reaches its conclusions independently of the juvenile
court’s findings.
2. Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Probation and Parole. Under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 43-416 (Reissue 2008), the Office of Juvenile Services has authority over the
parole function for juveniles committed to a youth rehabilitation and treatment
center and may revoke a juvenile’s parole.
iN Re iNTeReST OF SylveSTeR l. 	791
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 791
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:15 AM CST

3. ____: ____: ____. The Nebraska statutes make it clear that only the Office of
Juvenile Services has the authority to revoke a juvenile’s parole. if a juvenile
court revokes a juvenile’s parole, rather than the Office of Juvenile Services, a
juvenile is not granted all of the rights to which he or she was entitled.
Appeal from the County Court for lincoln County: kent d.
tuRnbull, Judge. Reversed and vacated.
eric 	M. 	Stott, 	Special Assistant Attorney 	General, 	for
appellant.
Amanda 	M. 	Speichert, 	Deputy 	lincoln 	County 	Public
Defender, guardian ad litem.
iRwin and caRlson, Judges.
caRlson, Judge.
iNTRODUCTiON
Pursuant to this court’s authority under Neb. Ct. R. App. P.
§ 2-111(B)(1), this case was ordered submitted without oral
argument. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services (Department) appeals from an order of the county court
for lincoln County, sitting as a juvenile court. in its order, the
court recommitted Sylvester l. to the youth Rehabilitation and
Treatment Center (yRTC) in Kearney, Nebraska. On appeal,
the Department argues that the court erred in sending Sylvester
back to yRTC pursuant to a motion for new disposition while
Sylvester was on parole. For the reasons set forth below, we
reverse and vacate.
BACKGROUND
Sylvester was born on February 16, 1994. On July 22,
2005, the lincoln County Attorney’s office filed a petition
alleging that Sylvester came within the meaning of Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 43-247(1) (Reissue 2004) because of his recent theft of
merchandise. On November 16, the court found that it was in
Sylvester’s best interests to be placed in the care, custody, and
control of the Department for placement in a suitable foster or
group home.
On July 26, 2007, the county attorney filed a motion for
new disposition. The county attorney stated that on July 23,
792 	17 NeBRASKA APPellATe RePORTS

Sylvester was found to have taken property of another client
at the group home where he was staying. On October 10, a
dispositional hearing was held. The court found that Sylvester
should be committed to the Department’s Office of Juvenile
Services (OJS) for placement at yRTC in Kearney.
The record shows that Sylvester was paroled from yRTC
on March 18, 2008. On October 15, the county attorney filed
another motion for new disposition. The county attorney stated
that on two recent occasions, Sylvester had been cited with
disturbing the peace. The county attorney also stated that
Sylvester had been aggressive in school and had threatened
harm to school staff. When confronted regarding his behavior
in school, Sylvester used profanity and was defiant.
A hearing was held on October 15, 2008. At the hear-
ing, Sylvester voluntarily admitted to the allegations con-
tained in the motion for new disposition. The court then
committed Sylvester to OJS for placement at yRTC. The
Department appeals.
ASSiGNMeNT OF eRROR
The Department alleges the juvenile court erred by recom-
mitting Sylvester to yRTC pursuant to a motion for new dispo-
sition while Sylvester was already on parole status.
STANDARD OF RevieW
[1] We review juvenile cases de novo on the record, and we
reach our conclusions independently of the juvenile court’s
findings. In re Interest of Walter W., 274 Neb. 859, 744 N.W.2d
55 (2008).
ANAlySiS
The Department argues that the juvenile court erred by
recommitting Sylvester to yRTC pursuant to a motion for
new disposition while Sylvester was already on parole status.
The Department contends that in essence, the court revoked
Sylvester’s parole, and that under Nebraska law, only OJS has
the power to revoke a juvenile’s parole.
[2] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-404 (Reissue 2008) defines OJS
as a division within the Department that is charged with
iN Re iNTeReST OF SylveSTeR l. 	793
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 791

oversight, administration, and control of state juvenile cor-
rectional facilities and programs for juveniles who have vio-
lated the law. in addition, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-416 (Reissue
2008) states:
[OJS] shall have administrative authority over the parole
function for juveniles committed to [yRTC] and may (1)
determine the time of release on parole of committed
juveniles eligible for such release, (2) fix the conditions
of parole, revoke parole, issue or authorize the issuance
of detainers for the apprehension and detention of parole
violators, and impose other sanctions short of revocation
for violation of conditions of parole, and (3) determine
the time of discharge from parole.
The Nebraska statutes, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-419
to 43-423 (Reissue 2008), go on to provide an outline of the
parole revocation process for a juvenile. This process includes
the following: a preliminary hearing by an impartial hearing
officer; notice of the preliminary hearing, including its pur-
pose and the alleged violations; a written decision regarding
probable cause; a hearing within 14 days after the preliminary
hearing if the juvenile is being held pending the hearing; the
right to compel witnesses to attend and testify on his or her
behalf; and the opportunity to present a statement in his or her
own behalf. Section 43-422 states that a juvenile may admit the
parole violations in writing after being notified of the possible
consequences and his or her rights pertaining to the hearing.
The record shows that Sylvester was not granted all of the
rights that he was entitled to if his parole had been revoked
by OJS.
Sylvester argues that the court did not violate OJS’ author-
ity, because the court recommitted Sylvester on the new
charges and did not revoke his parole. The record does not
support this conclusion. Although the county attorney filed a
motion requesting a new disposition for Sylvester, the county
attorney did not file a petition setting out new allegations or
charges against Sylvester. if the county attorney had filed a
petition setting out new law violations and Sylvester had been
adjudicated under § 43-247(1) (Reissue 2008) based on these
new charges, the juvenile court would have had the authority
794 	17 NeBRASKA APPellATe RePORTS

to recommit Sylvester to yRTC under these new allegations.
That is not what happened in the instant case. By sending
Sylvester back to yRTC on a motion for new disposition
while Sylvester was on parole, the juvenile court in effect
revoked Sylvester’s parole.
[3] The Nebraska statutes make it clear that only OJS has the
authority to revoke Sylvester’s parole. And because the juvenile
court revoked Sylvester’s parole, rather than OJS, Sylvester
was not granted all of the rights to which he was entitled. For
these reasons, we reverse and vacate the juvenile court’s order
recommitting Sylvester to yRTC.
CONClUSiON
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the juvenile
court lacked authority to recommit Sylvester to yRTC pursuant
to a motion for new disposition while Sylvester was already on
parole. Therefore, we reverse and vacate the juvenile court’s
order recommitting Sylvester to yRTC.
R eveRsed and vacated.
inbody, Chief Judge, participating on briefs.
iN Re iNTeReST OF SylveSTeR l. 	795
Cite as 17 Neb. App. 791