Sex dating in sidney nebraska
INBODY, Chief Judge, and SIEVERS and CASSEL, Judges. Lux, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Paul B. We conclude that the State did not waive its right to appeal, and therefore, we address the merits of the State's contention on appeal that the sentences are excessively lenient. He can be characterized as an immature/opportunistic offender rather than an aggressive offender. The first impression issue presented by this case is Thompson's claim that the State, by agreeing to “remain silent” at sentencing, has waived its right to appeal the district court's sentences as excessively lenient. Sexual offenders with this profile are usually best managed by requiring no unsupervised contact with vulnerable potential victims, requirement of lack of use of drugs and alcohol to prevent further diminishment of judgment, and long term probation/parole oversight to ensure compliance. “ ‘[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.’ ” State v. There are no known previous sexual offenses with adults or children. The present offense appears to be one more of impulse control and lack of judgment and does not appear to include any violence or “grooming”.
We shall discuss the details of the crimes in our discussion of the sentences in the analysis section of our opinion. When the court asked if there was any evidence or recommendations to present, the State said that there was “no argument from the State.” The State noted that this was “part of [the plea] agreement.” The district court then sentenced Thompson as stated above, and the State has timely appealed. We begin with Thompson's assertions that the State, by complaining on appeal that his sentences were excessively lenient after agreeing to stand silent at the sentencing hearing, is in violation of the parties' plea agreement and that “[t]his Court should enforce the plea agreement between Thompson and the State by dismissing this appeal.” Brief for appellee at 9. This response pattern indicates a rather normal and generally satisfactory sexual adjustment․CHILD MOLEST SCALE: PROBLEM RISK RANGE RISK PERCENTILE:73This offender's response pattern on the Child Molest Scale is in the Problem Risk (70 to 89th percentile) range. The State of Nebraska appeals the sentences imposed on Thompson as excessively lenient. Testing shows [Thompson] to be rather immature and self-centered, but he does not show indications of psychopathy or psychosis. Miller, of Matzke, Mattoon & Miller, Sidney, for appellee. Thompson pled no contest to two counts of sexual assault of a child, and the district court for Cheyenne County sentenced Thompson to 5 years' intensive supervised probation on each count, to run consecutively. It is noted that the victim in this case is post pubescent.Significantly, the antisocial scale and its accompanying comments provide in part: ANTISOCIAL SCALE: LOW RISK RANGE RISK PERCENTILE:0Few, if any, indicators of repeated lying, deceit, or chronic inability to conform to society are present. This person is capable of affection, sympathy and remorse.Low risk usually is not associated with antisocial tendencies.