State v. Dale

- 861 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
Sherry A. Dale, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed February 20, 2026. 	No. S-25-350.
1. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen-
tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion
by the trial court.
2. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a
trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unrea-
sonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
and evidence.
3. Pleas: Sentences: Probation and Parole. There is no requirement in
this state that the sentencing court must inform a defendant contemplat-
ing a guilty plea or a plea of no contest of the possibility of probation, as
long as the court advises him or her of the existence, if any, of a manda-
tory minimum sentence as well as the full range of possible penalties.
4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. A party is not entitled to prosecute error
upon the granting of an order or the rendition of a judgment when the
same was made with his or her consent, or upon his or her application.
5. Sentences: Penalties and Forfeitures: Appeal and Error. Generally,
where no objection is made at a sentencing hearing when a defendant
is provided an opportunity to do so, any claimed error is forfeited and
is not preserved for appellate review.
6. Appeal and Error. Usually, when a party fails to object to an alleged
error by the trial court, an appellate court will, at most, review the issue
for plain error.
7. ____. Plain error may be found on appeal when an error unasserted
or uncomplained of below, but plainly evident from the record, preju-
dicially affects a litigant’s substantial right and, if uncorrected, would
result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judi-
cial process.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:55 AM CDT

- 862 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Leigh
Ann Retelsdorf, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and
John J. Jedlicka for appellant.
Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Teryn Blessin for
appellee.
Funke, 	C.J., 	Cassel, 	Stacy, 	Papik, 	Freudenberg,
Bergevin, and Vaughn, JJ.
Cassel, J.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a no contest plea, the court convicted Sherry
A. Dale of felony animal neglect and imposed a probationary
sentence. Dale challenges the condition of probation requiring
her to reimburse an agency for expenses it incurred related
to Dale’s animal. The State asserts plain error in the absence
of a fixed amount of reimbursement. We conclude that the
court was not required to inform Dale of this potential condi-
tion and that Dale forfeited her other challenges. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
Following calls concerning an emaciated and lethargic dog,
animal control officers with the Nebraska Humane Society
(Humane Society) observed the dog to have multiple open
wounds and to be too weak to stand. Ultimately, the Humane
Society euthanized the dog and performed a necropsy.
The State charged Dale, the dog’s registered owner, with
animal neglect/abandonment with serious injury, a Class IV
felony. The court advised Dale that the charge carried the pre-
sumption the court would impose probation 1 but that the court
could impose a sentence of up to 2 years’ imprisonment,
followed by up to 12 months of post-release supervision,
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(2) (Reissue 2016).

- 863 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
a $10,000 fine, or both fine and imprisonment. 2 The court
also informed Dale that the court could place a restriction
of up to 15 years on her ownership of animals. It did not
inform her that she could be required to pay unreimbursed
expenses incurred by the Humane Society related to the dog.
In exchange for the State’s agreement to recommend a sen-
tence of probation, Dale pled no contest. The court accepted
Dale’s plea.
The court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSR).
The record does not show that the court ordered the PSR to
include documentation regarding the nature and amount of any
expenses incurred by the Humane Society in conjunction with
the dog. The PSR showed that Dale was unemployed and had
been on “SSI disability” for 18 years.
The probation officer who completed the PSR suggested a
number of conditions if the court placed Dale on probation.
Among the recommendations were that Dale be placed on
probation for 18 months, that she pay a probation administra-
tion fee of $30, that the probation supervision fees be waived
due to Dale’s being on disability and not earning income, that
she not possess an animal or care for other people’s animals
during probation, and that Dale be required to pay all fees
to the Humane Society for the pickup, removal, euthanasia,
and necropsy of the dog within the first 12 months of proba-
tion. The PSR did not contain any information with respect
to such fees.
During the sentencing hearing, Dale’s counsel addressed the
recommendations in the PSR for purposes of allocution. Among
other statements, counsel informed the court as follows:
Also, I would state I discussed the recommendation.
She 	would 	comply 	with 	those. 	I 	would 	thank 	the
probation officer for asking to waive her monthly fees.
Given what’s reported there for SSI income, I think that’s
appropriate. There’s also a pay any Humane Society fees
2 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105(1) (Cum. Supp. 2024).

- 864 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
on there. I know with her income, I don’t think that’s,
unfortunately, realistic just because, I think as the Court
can see in the PS[R], she’s of limited income very much
there. But she was very compliant with me and good at
appointments, very professional and had a personality
when I met with her that would be consistent with
somebody not having any prior significant charges or
jail. It’s literally all fines prior to this, Your Honor.
I 	would 	ask 	the 	Court 	to 	go 	along 	with 	the
recommendation.
The court pronounced a sentence of 2 years’ probation with
“the normal and ordinary conditions of probation.” The court
stated, “Obviously, probation, after speaking with [Dale], can
also talk to the Court about any things that need to be waived,
any fees or anything else like that.” The court ordered that
Dale not possess an animal for the next 10 years and not care
for other people’s animals. It further ordered that Dale serve
the first 30 days in jail. The court did not mention reimburse-
ment of any expenses, and no evidence was adduced during
the hearing regarding the amount of any expenses incurred by
the Humane Society. Near the end of the sentencing hearing,
the court told Dale’s counsel to “go back into the jury room
with a deputy and go through the order of probation, each and
every condition, with your client, make sure that she under-
stands them all; and if we need to reconvene, we will go ahead
and do that for any questions.”
The written order of probation contained the condition
recommended by the probation officer concerning payment
of fees to the Humane Society. It did not identify an amount.
The order contained a provision stating that “the Court, upon
application of the probation officer or [Dale], [or] upon its own
motion, may modify or eliminate any of the above conditions
or add any further conditions.”
Dale appealed, and we moved the case to our docket. 3
3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024).

- 865 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Dale assigns two errors, containing multiple parts, related
to the condition of probation that she reimburse the Humane
Society for all fees for the pickup, removal, euthanasia, and
necropsy of the dog within the first 12 months of said proba-
tion. We restate the assignments to allege that the condition
was erroneous because the court failed to (1) advise Dale
of that potential penalty during the plea hearing, (2) order
that the PSR include documentation regarding the nature and
amount of expenses, (3) include the reimbursement part of
her sentence in its oral pronouncement, (4) hold a hearing to
determine the amount of reimbursement, and (5) order any
particular amount.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed
within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the
trial court. 4 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s
decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreason-
able or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience,
reason, and evidence. 5
ANALYSIS
The focus of this appeal is the condition of probation
that Dale pay all fees to the Humane Society for the pickup,
removal, euthanasia, and necropsy of the dog. The court con-
victed Dale of violating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1009 (Cum. Supp.
2024), and the parties recognize that for such a violation, the
Legislature allows a sentencing court to order a defendant to
reimburse an agency, such as the Humane Society, for certain
unreimbursed expenses.
One source of statutory authorization is found in Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 28-1011 (Reissue 2016). The relevant subsec-
tion provides:
4 State v. Rejai, ante p. 599, 29 N.W.3d 225 (2026).
5 Id.

- 866 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
In addition to any other sentence given for a violation
of section 28-1009 . . . , the sentencing court may order
the defendant to reimburse a public or private agency for
any unreimbursed expenses incurred in conjunction with
the care, impoundment, seizure, or disposal of an ani-
mal involved in the violation of such section. Whenever
the court believes that such reimbursement may be a
proper sentence or the prosecuting attorney requests,
the court shall order that the presentence investigation
report include documentation regarding the nature and
amount of the expenses incurred. The court may order
that reimbursement be made immediately, in specified
installments, or within a specified period of time, not to
exceed five years after the date of judgment. 6
Although there is another subsection, prior to oral argument,
neither party referred to it. 7 We express no opinion regarding
that other subsection.
Regarding a sentence to probation, another statute autho-
rizes conditions that may be attached. First, the statute states
in part, “When a court sentences an offender to probation, it
shall attach such reasonable conditions as it deems necessary
or likely to insure that the offender will lead a law-abiding
life.” 8 It then states, “The court may, as a condition of a sen-
tence of probation, require the offender . . . (q) [t]o satisfy
any other conditions reasonably related to the rehabilitation
of the offender.” 9
Dale attacks the condition on several grounds. As dis-
cussed below, we conclude that she forfeited all but the first
claimed error.
6 § 28-1011(1).
7 See § 28-1011(2) (imposing liability for expenses even if reimbursement is
not ordered).
8 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2262(1) (Cum. Supp. 2024).
9 § 29-2262(2).

- 867 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
No Advisement During
Plea Hearing
Dale first contends that the court erred in imposing the
condition when it did not advise her that reimbursement was a
potential consequence or otherwise address it during the plea
hearing. We see no error.
It is well established that a defendant can voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently enter a plea only if he or she
understands its consequences. 10 We have stated that explain-
ing the possible range of penalties for each crime is adequate
to enable a defendant to freely, voluntarily, intelligently, and
understandingly plead to each crime with which he or she is
charged. 11 Here, the court advised Dale of the range of penal-
ties for a Class IV felony as set forth in § 28-105(1).
[3] The reimbursement provision was ordered not as a crimi-
nal penalty, but, rather, as a condition of probation. There is no
requirement in this state that the sentencing court must inform
a defendant contemplating a guilty plea or a plea of no contest
of the possibility of probation, as long as the court advises
him or her of the existence, if any, of a mandatory minimum
sentence as well as the full range of possible penalties. 12 We
observe that by use of the word “may” in § 28-1011(1), it is
presumed that the Legislature made reimbursement as part of
a sentence permissive or discretionary. 13 Thus, for violations
of § 28-1009 or Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1010 (Reissue 2016),
a court is not required to inform a defendant contemplating
a plea of guilty or no contest of the possibility of reimbursing
a public or private agency.
10 See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274
(1969).
11 State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814, 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986).
12 State v. Spiegel, 239 Neb. 233, 474 N.W.2d 873 (1991). See, also, State v.
Stastny, 223 Neb. 903, 395 N.W.2d 492 (1986).
13 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-802(1) (Reissue 2021).

- 868 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
Our determination is further buttressed by case law con-
cerning restitution. We have held that the failure to inform a
defendant of the possibility of restitution as a sentence renders
the entry of a plea of guilty involuntary and unintelligent in
that regard and prevents the imposition of an order of restitu-
tion. 14 However, where restitution was a condition of proba-
tion, rather than a criminal penalty, we found no merit to an
argument that the failure to apprise of the possibility of restitu-
tion rendered a guilty plea involuntary. 15
Here, because the reimbursement was a condition of pro-
bation, it was not essential that the court advise Dale during
the plea hearing of the possibility of having to reimburse the
Humane Society.
Dale Forfeited Other
Assigned Errors
Dale also contends that the court erred in not ordering docu-
mentation of expenses to be included in the PSR, not address-
ing reimbursement during sentencing, not holding a hearing to
determine the amount of reimbursement, and not ordering an
amount. Although Dale could have raised these issues to the
district court, she did not.
The condition was a recommendation contained in the PSR.
Dale’s counsel touched on it during the sentencing hearing.
But counsel did not raise any objection to the recommended
condition; instead, counsel questioned Dale’s ability to pay.
Counsel’s concluding remark during allocution was to “ask
the Court to go along with the recommendation.” The court
did so—it included the recommended condition in its proba-
tion order. Near the end of the sentencing hearing, the court
told Dale’s counsel to “go through the order of probation,
each and every condition,” with Dale and stated that the par-
ties and the court could reconvene if there were any questions.
14 See State v. War Bonnett, 229 Neb. 681, 428 N.W.2d 508 (1988).
15 See State v. Sanders, 241 Neb. 687, 490 N.W.2d 211 (1992).

- 869 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
The record does not show that court reconvened or that Dale
requested the court to do so. During oral argument, Dale’s
counsel confirmed that no such request was made.
[4,5] Two principles are implicated. First, a party is not
entitled to prosecute error upon the granting of an order or the
rendition of a judgment when the same was made with his or
her consent, or upon his or her application. 16 Dale’s counsel
asked the court to follow the recommendation in the PSR and
cannot now complain that the court did so. Second, generally,
where no objection is made at a sentencing hearing when a
defendant is provided an opportunity to do so, any claimed
error is forfeited and is not preserved for appellate review. 17
During allocution and after, Dale had the opportunity to pres-
ent any concerns about the recommended condition. Aside
from mentioning Dale’s limited income, Dale raised no objec-
tions to the condition.
[6,7] Usually, when a party fails to object to an alleged
error by the trial court, we will, at most, review the issue for
plain error. 18 Plain error may be found on appeal when an error
unasserted or uncomplained of below, but plainly evident from
the record, prejudicially affects a litigant’s substantial right
and, if uncorrected, would result in damage to the integrity,
reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. 19
We see no plain error resulting from Dale’s forfeitures.
Although the court did not specify an amount to be paid,
the probation statutes provide a remedy. 20 Thus, leaving the
amount unspecified would not result in damage to the integ-
rity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process. Likewise,
for essentially the same reason, we decline the State’s invita-
tion to find plain error in the district court’s omission of a
16 State v. Reames, 308 Neb. 361, 953 N.W.2d 807 (2021).
17 State v. Dawn, ante p. 342, 27 N.W.3d 9 (2025).
18 State v. Horne, 315 Neb. 766, 1 N.W.3d 457 (2024).
19 State v. Jackson, ante p. 609, 29 N.W.3d 232 (2026).
20 See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2263(3) (Cum. Supp. 2024).

- 870 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
320 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. DALE
Cite as 320 Neb. 861
specific dollar amount. Moreover, conditions of probation
often impose requirements to pay for testing, compliance, and
similar items, without specifying dollar amounts. Nothing in
this opinion should be read to question that practice.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, we conclude the following:
• Because reimbursing the Humane Society was a condition of
probation, rather than a criminal penalty, the court did not err
by not informing Dale of the possibility of reimbursement dur-
ing the plea hearing.
• By asking the court to “go along” with the probation officer’s
recommendation—which included the condition at issue—and
by not raising any objection to the condition to the sentencing
court when provided the opportunity, Dale forfeited her chal-
lenges to it.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
Affirmed.