A court's authority to revoke a probationer and impose a term of imprisonment extends only to the single term of
post-release supervision that the probationer is serving, provided that the probationer has not otherwise been ordered
to serve multiple terms concurrently. State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020).
Because a court has discretion under subsection (2) of this section to impose, upon revocation, any term of
imprisonment up to the remaining period of post-release supervision, an appellate court will not disturb that decision
absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019).
The Legislature has not demonstrated within this section that jail credit should be given for time served prior to
revocation. State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019).
Time spent in jail prior to revocation is credited against a probationer's sentence of post-release supervision. State
v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019).
When calculating the "remaining period of post-release supervision" under subsection (2) of this section, courts
must first identify the number of days the probationer was originally ordered to serve on post-release supervision.
The court calculates the "remaining period of post-release supervision" by subtracting the number of days actually
served from the number of days ordered to be served. State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019).
When determining the amount of time "remaining" on a period of post-release supervision, courts are not required
to turn a blind eye to a probationer's absconsion from supervision. State v. Phillips, 302 Neb. 686, 924 N.W.2d 699
When a court has revoked post-release supervision, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is
governed exclusively by this section and does not depend on the maximum sentence of initial imprisonment
authorized by the relevant statute. State v. Wal, 302 Neb. 308, 923 N.W.2d 367 (2019).
This section permits a court, upon determining that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, to revoke the probation and impose on the offender such new sentence as might have been imposed originally for the crime of which he was convicted; violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient. State v. Finnegan, 232 Neb. 75, 439 N.W.2d 496 (1989).
Where the defendant violates a condition of his probation, the court may extend the terms of the probation, provided that the total length of probation does not exceed two years for a first offense misdemeanor or five years for a second offense misdemeanor or felony. State v. Ladehoff, 229 Neb. 111, 425 N.W.2d 352 (1988).
In order to revoke probation for nonpayment of restitution, the evidence must clearly and convincingly show that the probationer has willfully refused to make restitution when he or she has the resources to pay or has failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to find employment and otherwise legally acquire the resources to pay restitution. State v. Heaton, 225 Neb. 702, 407 N.W.2d 780 (1987).
The violation of probation is not itself a crime, but merely a mechanism which may trigger the revocation of a previously granted probation. Once a court determines that a condition of probation has been violated and that the probation should be revoked, this section provides that the court is to impose a new sentence for the crime of which the defendant was originally convicted. State v. Painter, 223 Neb. 808, 394 N.W.2d 292 (1986).
Upon revocation of probation, the court may impose such punishment as may have been imposed originally for the crime of which such defendant was convicted. Defendant who was convicted of third offense driving while intoxicated in 1980 and who violated his probation in 1984 was subject to sentencing under the penal statute in effect at the time of his conviction. State v. Jacobson, 221 Neb. 639, 379 N.W.2d 772 (1986).
The court, under the language of this section, was free to require the defendant, after the revocation of probation, to serve the thirty days of jail time mandated by section 28-106 without regard to the forty-eight hours he had already served. State v. Schulz, 221 Neb. 473, 378 N.W.2d 165 (1985).
If the court finds that the probationer violated a condition of his probation, it may revoke the probation and impose such new sentence as might have been imposed originally for the crime of which he was convicted. State v. Osterman, 197 Neb. 727, 250 N.W.2d 654 (1977); State v. Williams, 194 Neb. 483, 233 N.W.2d 772 (1975).
Terms of post-release supervision may be served consecutively. When a consecutive sentence is imposed, the
second sentence begins only upon the termination of the prior term of imprisonment. A prisoner who receives
multiple consecutive sentences does not serve all sentences simultaneously, but serves only one sentence at a time.
State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020).
Once a district court finds a violation of postrelease supervision, it must proceed under this section. State v. Kennedy, 299 Neb. 362, 908 N.W.2d 69 (2018).
Termination of postrelease supervision as being unsatisfactory is not a revocation of postrelease supervision and is not statutorily authorized. State v. Kennedy, 299 Neb. 362, 908 N.W.2d 69 (2018).
Violation of a single condition of probation established by clear and convincing evidence can support revocation. State v. Clark, 197 Neb. 42, 246 N.W.2d 657 (1976).
An amendment to a probation order which was not made in conformance with subsection (2)(c) of this section is void. State v. Pawling, 9 Neb. App. 824, 621 N.W.2d 821 (2000).