Adams v. State, 879 N.W.2d 18

Brian J. Adams is serving two life sentences and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,110(1) is unconstitutional and that he is eligible for parole.
Section 83-1,110(1) makes every committed offender eligible for parole after serving one-half the minimum term of the sentence; because one-half of life cannot be determined, the court has interpreted the statute as making lifers ineligible for parole unless their sentence is commuted to a term of years.
Adams argued the statute usurps the Board of Parole’s constitutional power to grant paroles under Neb. Const. art. IV, § 13 (the “conditions clause”).
The Board and its members moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the district court granted the motion, holding the commutation requirement is a permissible legislative “condition” on parole eligibility.
Nebraska Supreme Court granted bypass, reviewed the constitutional question de novo, and affirmed the district court, holding the Legislature may prescribe conditions on parole eligibility and § 83-1,110(1) does not infringe the Board’s parole-granting authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 83-1,110(1) violates Neb. Const. art. IV, § 13 by denying Board power to parole lifers	Adams: The conditions clause gives Board power to parole any offender (except treason/impeachment), so Legislature cannot bar parole eligibility for lifers	State/Board: The conditions clause allows the Legislature to prescribe conditions for parole eligibility; statute conditions parole on commutation for life sentences	The statute is constitutional: Legislature may set conditions for parole eligibility; § 83-1,110(1) does not infringe the Board’s parole power

State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78 (Neb. 2011) (discusses separation of powers and sentencing authority)
In re Petition of Nebraska Community Corr. Council, 274 Neb. 225 (Neb. 2007) (addresses improper delegation and separation-of-powers limits)
Poindexter v. Houston, 275 Neb. 863 (Neb. 2008) (procedural bypass authority/standards)
Conroy v. Keith Cty. Bd. of Equal., 288 Neb. 196 (Neb. 2014) (principles of constitutional construction)
Big John’s Billiards v. State, 288 Neb. 938 (Neb. 2014) (presumption of constitutionality; burden on challenger)
Neun v. Ewing, 290 Neb. 963 (Neb. 2015) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss)
Thompson v. Heineman, 289 Neb. 798 (Neb. 2015) (constitutional questions of law reviewed de novo)
Board of Trustees v. City of Omaha, 289 Neb. 993 (Neb. 2015) (appellate obligation to reach independent conclusion on legal questions)
State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260 (Neb. 1996) (exec. branch authority re: commutations and pardons)