NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

PIRTLE, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to this court's authority under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-111(B)(1) (rev. 2008), this case was ordered submitted without oral argument. Kevin Runningbear was convicted of robbery in the district court for Lancaster County and sentenced to 2 to 4 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a guilty verdict and that the trial court imposed an excessive sentence. Based on the reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2010, the State filed an amended information charging Runningbear with robbery. He pled not guilty, and a jury trial was held on January 3, 2011.

Kathryn Ankenbauer testified that on June 14, 2010, she left her place of work, located on 10th and K Streets in Lincoln, around 4:30 p.m. Her car was parked on 11th Street, between E and F Streets. As she walked to her car, she was carrying a stack of carpet tiles weighing about 20 to 25 pounds and her purse, which was slung over her shoulder. As Ankenbauer got to the intersection of 11th and E Streets, she noticed two men sitting on the steps of a building. When she was about 50 feet from her car, one of the men, Runningbear, got up and started to walk toward her. When she was about 20 feet from her car, Runningbear approached her and took the carpet tiles from her and set them on the hood of her car. He said nothing at that point. When Ankenbauer moved toward her car door, Runningbear leaned against the driver's side door, blocking the handle and lock on the door. Runningbear told Ankenbauer that he was really hungry and needed money for food, and he inquired if she had anything she could give him. Ankenbauer said she was sorry that she could not help him and asked if she could get in her car. Runningbear did not move and told Ankenbauer that he and his "buddy" wanted money for food. He then asked Ankenbauer, "How are we going to make this work?" Ankenbauer again asked if she could get into her car, but Runningbear again asked how they were going to "make this work."

Ankenbauer then got out her wallet, took out a $5 bill and gave it to Runningbear. He took it, picked up the carpet tiles off the hood, and then set them right back down where they had been. He then began walking toward the man he had been sitting with on the steps, waving the money in the air. As he walked away, he said, "God bless."

Ankenbauer testified that Runningbear did not threaten her, did not make any threatening gestures, and did not display or indicate that he had a weapon. Ankenbauer testified that she felt threatened because he had leaned against the car door, blocking her access to the door handle and lock which she perceived as an obvious gesture of "I'm going to get what I want from you." She testified that she asked him two or three times if she could get into her car and that he did not move. She testified that she was frightened at the time of the incident and that she felt she had to give money. She testified that she could not call out for help because she did not see anyone else around outside, except the man with whom Runningbear had been sitting with on the steps.

Ankenbauer testified that when Runningbear walked away, she put the carpet tiles in her car, got into her car, and drove away. She testified that the whole incident lasted only about a minute. Ankenbauer testified that when she drove away, she was crying. She immediately called her boyfriend, because she was scared and he was the first person she thought to call. When she arrived at her apartment a few minutes later, she told her roommate about the incident, and later that night, she called her father and told him what had happened. She did not call the police the day of the incident.

Ankenbauer went to work the next morning and sent an e-mail to the human resources representative in her office detailing the incident. The two subsequently discussed what had happened. After Ankenbauer's conversation with the human resources representative, Ankenbauer called the police to report the incident.

Ankenbauer testified that the police officer she spoke with asked her how she felt when Runningbear was leaning against her car door, and she told him she felt really intimidated. She told the officer that she felt she was being taken advantage of by Runningbear because she was walking alone, carrying something heavy, and was a woman. Ankenbauer testified that Runningbear's attitude was cocky, but not aggressive. She explained that he seemed very sure of himself, like he knew he could get what he wanted from her.

Following Ankenbauer's testimony, the State rested and Runningbear motioned for a directed verdict, which was denied. Runningbear adduced no evidence and rested. The jury found Runningbear guilty of robbery, and judgment was entered accordingly. The trial court subsequently sentenced Runningbear to 2 to 4 years' imprisonment.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Runningbear assigns that the trial court erred in (1) failing to find that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a guilty verdict and (2) imposing an excessive sentence.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hudson, 279 Neb. 6, 775 N.W.2d 429 (2009). Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, an appellate court, in reviewing a criminal conviction, does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence. Id. Any conflicts in the evidence or questions concerning the credibility of witnesses are for the finder of fact to resolve. Id. A conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the properly admitted evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. Id.

An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Sidzyik, 281 Neb. 305, 795 N.W.2d 281 (2011).

ANALYSIS

Sufficiency of Evidence.

Runningbear first argues that the State's evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. A person commits robbery if, with the intent to steal, he forcibly and by violence, or by putting in fear, takes from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatever. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324(1) (Reissue 2008). Runningbear argues that the State failed to prove that Runningbear intended to steal from Ankenbauer and failed to prove that Ankenbauer was put in fear.

Runningbear argues that he did not intend to steal, but, rather, he intended only to take money that was voluntarily given to him. To "steal" is not specifically defined by § 24-324. The expression has been commonly described as a "`taking without right or leave with intent to keep wrongfully.'" State v. Barfield, 272 Neb. 502, 519, 723 N.W.2d 303, 317 (2006), quoting State v. Aldaco, 271 Neb. 160, 710 N.W.2d 101 (2006). The focus of the statute is on the intent to deprive the owner of his or her property permanently, to keep it from him or her. Id.

As Ankenbauer was walking to her car, Runningbear approached her, took the carpet tiles from her, set them on the hood of her car, and blocked Ankenbauer's access to her car. He intercepted Ankenbauer before she got to her car and could get in to avoid him. He took the carpet tiles from her so she would have her hands free to get money out of her purse. Runningbear asked Ankenbauer for money, and when he was refused, he did not leave, but, rather, he continued to block Ankenbauer's access to her car, again stated he wanted money for food, and then asked how they were going to "make this work." Runningbear's actions made it clear that he was not going to let Ankenbauer get in her car without giving him money. As a result, Ankenbauer gave him money that she would not have given him had he not blocked her access to her car. Runningbear's intent to steal is apparent from his leaning against Ankenbauer's driver's side door, blocking the handle and the lock, not moving after Ankenbauer asked him if she could get in her car, and asking her how they were going to "make this work." It is clear that when Runningbear approached Ankenbauer, he intended to get money from her whether she gave it to him voluntarily or not. There is sufficient evidence to support a finding that Runningbear intended to steal from Ankenbauer.

Runningbear also argues that there was insufficient evidence that Ankenbauer was put in fear. Ankenbauer testified that she felt threatened and was frightened at the time of the incident and felt she had no choice but to give Runningbear money so she could get in her car and leave. She testified that when she left in her car after the incident, she was crying and called her boyfriend because she was scared. Ankenbauer also told the police officer that she felt intimidated. The evidence at trial clearly showed that Ankenbauer was placed in fear by Runningbear.

Runningbear's assignment that there was insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict for robbery is without merit.

Excessive Sentence.

Runningbear next argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. State v. Sidzyik, 281 Neb. 305, 795 N.W.2d 281 (2011). An abuse of discretion in imposing a sentence occurs when a sentencing court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive the litigant of a substantial right and a just result. Id.

Runningbear's sentence is within the statutory limits. Robbery is a Class II felony punishable by a minimum of 1 year's imprisonment to a maximum of 50 years' imprisonment. § 28-324(2); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2008). Runningbear was sentenced to a period of 2 to 4 years' imprisonment with credit for 231 days previously served.

In imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors. State v. Sidzyik, supra. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge's observation of the defendant's demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant's life. Id. In imposing a sentence, a judge should consider the defendant's age, mentality, education, experience, and social and cultural background, as well as his or her past criminal record or law-abiding conduct, the motivation for the offense, the nature of the offense, and the amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime. Id.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it could not ignore the serious nature and circumstances of the crime. It recognized that no weapons were involved, but that Ankenbauer was put in fear and was very intimidated by Runningbear's actions. The court also stated that it could not ignore Runningbear's lengthy criminal history, which included assaultive and threatening behavior.

Based on the presentence investigation, Runningbear's criminal history began in 1987 and he has consistently continued to commit offenses over the past 20-plus years. He has been an alcoholic for many years, which has led to much of his criminal and often violent behavior. Based on the record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the sentence it imposed.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a guilty verdict for robbery and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not excessive.

AFFIRMED.