State v. Aguallo, 294 Neb. 177

Manuel A. Aguallo was charged with third-degree sexual assault of a child for conduct alleged to have occurred on or about January 25, 2015; he pled no contest and was sentenced on September 9, 2015.
Before sentencing, Nebraska enacted L.B. 605 (2015), which reduced maximum imprisonment for Class IIIA felonies from 5 to 3 years and converted many felonies to determinate sentences with postrelease supervision.
L.B. 605 also amended the indeterminate sentencing statute to limit indeterminate sentences for most felonies and added § 28-116, stating changes by L.B. 605 "do not apply to any offense committed prior to August 30, 2015."
At sentencing the district court concluded the reduced penalties did not apply retroactively to offenses committed before August 30, 2015 and imposed an indeterminate sentence of 59 to 60 months.
Aguallo appealed, arguing the penalty reduction for Class IIIA felonies should apply to his offense because § 28-320.01 (his conviction statute) was not specifically listed in § 28-116’s catalog of amended sections.
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered statutory interpretation principles and whether the Randolph rule (mitigating statutes apply when enacted before final judgment unless Legislature says otherwise) required retroactive application.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Aguallo)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether L.B. 605’s reduced penalties for Class IIIA felonies apply retroactively to offenses committed before Aug. 30, 2015	Because § 28-320.01 (the offense statute) is not listed in § 28-116’s catalog, the Legislature did not intend to exclude retroactive application to his offense	§ 28-105(7) and § 28-116 explicitly state L.B. 605’s penalty changes "do not apply to any offense committed prior to August 30, 2015," so reductions are not retroactive	Held: The statutory language is plain and the Legislature did not intend retroactive application; reduced penalties do not apply to Aguallo
Whether imposition of an indeterminate 59–60 month sentence was plain error when a 60–60 month indeterminate sentence previously could be imposed	N/A (defendant did not claim error)	State urged plain error, arguing identical min/max could have been imposed under pre-LB605 law	Held: No plain error; 59–60 months is within statutory limits and discrepancy is not prejudicial

State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297 (1971) (establishing rule that mitigating statutory changes apply retroactively absent contrary legislative direction)
State v. Duncan, 291 Neb. 1003 (2016) (application of Randolph doctrine and statutory construction in criminal sentencing)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (2006) (discussion of indeterminate sentencing mechanics)
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (2015) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77 (2013) (principles of statutory construction)