The Nebraska Supreme Court has vacated the sentence imposed on Cristian E. Gonzalez Molina for a third-offense Driving Under the Influence (DUI), concluding that the lower courts made a significant error by affirming the enhanced sentence without any evidence of Molina’s prior convictions being formally presented or admitted into the record.
The high court found that the failure to establish the necessary foundation for the enhanced charge constituted “plain error,” meaning the mistake was so obvious and prejudicial that it required correction to maintain the integrity of the judicial process, even though the issue wasn’t sharply argued at every level of appeal.
The Initial Incident and Plea Process
Molina was initially charged with DUI, third offense, after officers found him sleeping in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle, with his car partially on a public street and partially on a driveway. A breath test showed his Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at .127.
Molina pleaded no contest to the charge. However, the initial proceedings in the Lancaster County Court were complicated. A first sentencing was vacated on appeal because the county judge failed to properly elicit a plea from Molina.
During a subsequent plea hearing in September 2023, the parties discussed which exhibits needed to be re-offered following the remand. Crucially, exhibits 5 and 6, which presumably contained the evidence of Molina’s two prior DUI convictions necessary for the third-offense enhancement, were specifically set aside. The State confirmed they would re-offer these exhibits only if the court reached the sentencing phase.
The Critical Sentencing Hearing Error
At the October 2023 sentencing hearing, the parties mistakenly assumed that the prior conviction evidence (exhibits 5 and 6) had already been received into the record during the prior hearings. The defense counsel stated, “I thought that [the State] offered — that among the exhibits that were received were the priors,” to which the judge agreed.
Despite this shared assumption, exhibits 5 and 6 were never formally offered or received into evidence at the September or October hearings, and they do not appear in the official record presented to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the county court proceeded to enhance the conviction to a third offense and sentenced Molina to 36 months of probation, along with a $1,000 fine and a 5-year license revocation.
Appeals Uphold the Sentence
Molina appealed to the district court, arguing the sentence was excessive due to the lack of proof of prior offenses. The district court affirmed the county court’s decision.
Molina then appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals declined to address the lack of evidence for enhancement, citing the “invited error doctrine.” They concluded that Molina’s counsel had “induced the court to forego the reintroduction of the exhibits” by stating they were already received. Consequently, the Court of Appeals affirmed the third-offense sentence.
Supreme Court Intervention on Plain Error
The Nebraska Supreme Court, however, took a different view. While Molina’s formal assignments of error focused on the excessiveness of the sentence, the Supreme Court focused on the fundamental lack of proof for the enhancement itself.
The Court defined plain error as an error evident from the record that, if uncorrected, would damage the integrity and fairness of the judicial process.
Chief Judge Funke, writing for the Court, stated plainly that the county court erred by enhancing the DUI conviction to a third offense without evidence of prior convictions. “As detailed above, exhibits 5 and 6, which allegedly contained evidence of Molina’s prior convictions, do not appear in the record before us. The State conceded as much,” the opinion noted.
Because the necessary factual basis—the prior convictions—was absent from the record, the Court found that Molina could not legally be sentenced as a third-offense offender.
Rejection of the Invited Error Doctrine
The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the Court of Appeals’ application of the invited error doctrine. This doctrine prevents a defendant from complaining about an error they encouraged the trial court to make.
The Supreme Court reasoned that while counsel expressed a *belief* that the exhibits had been offered, this exchange—a mistaken assertion followed by a judicial affirmation of that belief—did not constitute Molina *inducing* the court to commit the legal error of sentencing without proof.
“Whatever may be said of the exchange between Molina’s counsel and the county court, it cannot be the case that counsel’s statement indicating a belief that the exhibits were offered, followed by the court’s affirmation of that belief, amounts to Molina inducing the court’s error,” the opinion concluded.
The Court found that the core issue was the county court’s failure to ensure the statutory requirements for enhancement were met, irrespective of the defense counsel’s mistaken assurances.
As a result, the Supreme Court vacated Molina’s sentence and remanded the case back through the appellate courts with direction to the county court to hold a new enhancement and sentencing hearing, where the State will presumably need to properly introduce evidence of the prior convictions.