State v. Benavides, 294 Neb. 902

In June 2015 Eric Benavides assaulted his pregnant girlfriend; he was charged with and pleaded guilty to a Class IV felony (domestic assault of a pregnant female).
L.B. 605 (effective August 30, 2015) created Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02, directing courts to impose probation for Class IV felonies unless specified exceptions apply, and altered other sentencing provisions.
L.B. 605 also added provisions (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-105(7) and 28-116) declaring many penalty changes enacted by L.B. 605 nonretroactive to offenses with any element committed before August 30, 2015.
Benavides committed the offense before August 30, 2015 but was sentenced after that date; he argued the new probation presumption (§ 29-2204.02) should apply retroactively.
The district court rejected retroactive application and sentenced Benavides to 12–18 months’ incarceration; Benavides appealed claiming statutory error and abuse of sentencing discretion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the L.B. 605 penalty changes (including the probation presumption) are not retroactive and the sentence was within discretion.

Issue	Benavides' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 29-2204.02 (probation presumption for Class IV felonies) applies retroactively to offenses with elements committed before Aug. 30, 2015	§ 29-2204.02 lacks a nonretroactivity clause; under Randolph, ameliorative sentencing changes apply if enacted before final judgment	L.B. 605 contains express nonretroactivity (§ 28-105(7) & § 28-116) covering penalty changes, including probation	The probation presumption is a penalty change and § 28-105(7)/§ 28-116 preclude retroactive application; no retroactivity
Whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion by imposing incarceration instead of probation	Given youth, limited record, no fetal injury, rehabilitation efforts, probation was appropriate	Offense involved violent conduct toward a pregnant woman, prior failures on probation, and court discretion allowed incarceration within statutory limits	No abuse of discretion; sentence of 12–18 months was permissible and justified by facts

State v. Aguallo, 881 N.W.2d 918 (Neb. 2016) (recently decided, similar holding that L.B. 605 penalty reductions are not retroactive)
State v. Randolph, 183 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 1971) (ameliorative sentencing changes generally apply if enacted before final judgment unless Legislature provides otherwise)
State v. Carpenter, 880 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 2016) (standard that appellate courts will not disturb sentences within statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion)
State v. Goynes, 876 N.W.2d 912 (Neb. 2016) (statutory construction principles; give plain language its ordinary meaning)
State v. Urbano, 589 N.W.2d 144 (Neb. 1999) (discussing Randolph and retroactivity principles)
State v. Sikes, 834 N.W.2d 609 (Neb. 2013) (discussing factors and deference in sentencing)
State v. Duncan, 870 N.W.2d 422 (Neb. 2015) (noting exceptions to Randolph)
In re Interest of Alan L., 882 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review standard for questions of law)