State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 172

Background

Defendant Tareik Q. Artis pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine (Class IV) and possession of a stolen firearm (Class IIA) in exchange for dismissal of other drug counts.
Facts: Artis fled from police while armed; officers shot and wounded him; at the scene police found 4.9 grams of cocaine and a stolen .45 pistol with loaded magazines.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms: 2 years (not less than 2 nor more than 2) for the Class IV drug conviction and 15–20 years for the Class IIA firearm conviction.
Artis appealed, arguing the sentences were excessive and should run concurrently. The State later raised a potential plain-error issue arising from an intervening statute (L.B. 1094) that amended sentencing for Class IV felonies.
The central legal question became whether Artis’s "not less than 2 nor more than 2 years" sentence for the Class IV felony complied with the amended statute and, if not, whether any error was plain.

Issues

Issue	Artis' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the sentences were excessive	Sentence excessive given Artis’ youth and limited record; should be concurrent	Sentence within statutory limits and justified by criminal history and dangerous conduct	No abuse of discretion; sentence not excessive and consecutive terms permissible
Whether Class IV sentence is a determinate sentence (invalid under L.B. 1094)	Artis contended sentence is lawful as imposed	State argued the "not less than 2 nor more than 2" was determinate and conflicted with L.B. 1094’s requirement of an indeterminate sentence	Court held the sentence is indeterminate despite equal min/max; complies with L.B. 1094
Whether § 29‑2204(1) requires min < max for Class IV when applied "in accordance with the process set forth in section 29‑2204"	Artis: statutory scheme allows minimum equaling maximum for Class IV in this context	State: phrase “process” mandates use of § 29‑2204(1)(a) so min must be less than max	Court held § 29‑2204(1) excludes Class IV and § 29‑2204.02 refers to the whole § 29‑2204; no requirement that min < max for Class IV here
Whether postrelease supervision could be imputed to Artis (making sentence noncompliant)	Artis: no postrelease supervision was ordered; sentence thus complies	State: under prior statutory scheme some postrelease supervision might be imputed, creating conflict with L.B. 1094’s no-PRS requirement	Court found under L.B. 605 Artis was not subject to PRS when sentenced consecutively to Class IIA and Class IV; no plain error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88, 871 N.W.2d 243 (appellate review of within‑statutory sentences)
State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334, 837 N.W.2d 496 (court discretion to impose consecutive sentences)
State v. White, 256 Neb. 536, 590 N.W.2d 863 (distinction between determinate and indeterminate sentences)
State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (indeterminate sentence can have equal min and max)
State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297, 183 N.W.2d 225 (doctrine for applying intervening change in law at appeal)
State v. Bartholomew, 258 Neb. 174, 602 N.W.2d 510 (plain error review reserved on appeal)
State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703, 824 N.W.2d 668 (plain error definition and application)
State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718, 884 N.W.2d 10 (sentencing considerations and factors)