Wilkinson's appeal moved to Nebraska Supreme Court

The Nebraska Supreme Court will hear former Sidney Police Chief B.J. Wilkinson's appeal of a misdemeanor conviction and 30-day jail sentence.

The court is set to hear oral arguments in the case on March 31 in Omaha.

Wilkinson pleaded no contest to a charge of obstructing government operations last July. The charge related to pulling a citation that had been issued to Sidney's then-public services director.

After being ordered to serve 30 days in jail, Wilkinson appealed the conviction and sentence. In September, a district court judge upheld the ruling. A month later, Wilkinson appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.

The Nebraska Attorney General's Office, which is representing the state, and Thomas Sonntag, Wilkinson's attorney, have both submitted written briefs to Court of Appeals.

Last Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered the case moved from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court docket.

In an email, Suzanne Gage, director of communications for the attorney general's office, said the Supreme Court can move a case for any reason.

"And the order moving the case doesn't typically specify," she said.

Following the oral arguments in March, Gage said there is no timeline by which the court is required to issue an opinion.

"The court can take as much time as it needs," she said. "There is no timeframe following arguments."

Sonntag raised three issues in his written brief, arguing the factual basis provided at the time Wilkinson pleaded no contest was insufficient to support a finding of guilty, the complaint filed by the state didn't adequately state how Wilkinson violated the law and that the 30-day sentence was excessive.

The document further argues the position of police chief necessarily entails "an inherent amount of discretion" and that the citation paperwork that was pulled was placed under "administrative review."

"Chief Wilkinson made the determination that the citation, if transferred from the police to the county attorney for prosecution at that moment in time, would be detrimental to the public," the brief states.

The statute of limitations on the citation had not run out, the document adds.

In its brief, the state argues that Wilkinson has waived any complaint he may have had about the adequacy of the complaint charging him by not filing a motion at the trial court level.

"Since Wilkinson did not complain about the contents of the complaint to the county court, he has waived any complaint about it on appeal," the state's brief argues. "Even had he not so waved it, the complaint sufficiently charged him with the crime of obstruction of government operations, and the district court's conclusion is not clearly wrong."

Further, the state argues Wilkinson had no discretion not to forward the citation on to the county attorney.

"Wilkinson abused the power he held by preventing another government employee from engaging in the duties entrusted to him; the duty to charge violations of the criminal code and to do so in an even handed manner, regardless of who the defendant is," the brief states.

As to the jail sentence, the state argues it is within the sentencing guidelines.

"Wilkinson was sentenced to 30-days jail for a Class I misdemeanor, which carries a maximum of 1 year in county jail," the document reads. "Thirty days jail is scarcely excessive, and is on the very low end of the incarceration spectrum."

His removal of the citation usurped the county attorney's role in the judicial process, the document states.

"Wilkinson will serve a scant two weeks in jail, with good time, and to sentence a public official to a very short jail term for completely and utterly disregarding the law for his own benefit is not an abuse of discretion," it adds. "That is consistent with justice."