State v. Casterline
863 N.W.2d 148
Neb.2015Background
- Shelley L. Casterline was charged with first-degree murder, use of a weapon, and burglary in connection with Virginia Barone’s death; she pled guilty to second-degree murder (Class IB) pursuant to a plea bargain.
- On September 30, the district court sentenced Casterline to “not less than life and not more than life imprisonment” (life-to-life), with credit for 353 days.
- Casterline appealed, arguing the life-to-life sentence was unlawful under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204 and conflicted with statutory sentencing ranges in Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-105 and 28-304.
- The principal statutory question: whether § 29-2204 requires that, when the maximum is life for a Class IB felony, the minimum must be an expressly stated term-of-years (i.e., prohibit life-to-life).
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed prior Nebraska precedent holding life-to-life sentences permissible for Class IB felonies and whether Schnabel was correctly decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29-2204 requires a term-of-years minimum when the maximum is life for a Class IB felony | Casterline: § 29-2204 requires a minimum of “any term of years”; life is not a term of years, so life-to-life is invalid | State: prior Nebraska cases permit life-to-life; Schnabel and subsequent decisions control | Court affirmed life-to-life is permissible; declined to overrule Schnabel or prior cases |
| Whether a life-to-life sentence for a Class IB felony violates the statutory sentencing scheme in §§ 28-105 and 28-304 by effectively imposing life without parole (a Class IA punishment) | Casterline: life-to-life is de facto life without parole, exceeding Class IB punishment | State: life-to-life is allowed under prior precedent and does not convert the crime to Class IA punishment | Court rejected Casterline’s statutory and constitutional characterization; life-to-life does not equal life without parole for these purposes |
| Whether the court should reinterpret or ignore legislative acquiescence based on claimed legislative drafting mistakes | Casterline: Legislature’s amendments contain mistakes; court should correct statute or not apply doctrine of acquiescence | State: court will not rewrite statute; multiple post-Schnabel amendments show Legislature had opportunity to act | Court declined to revisit doctrine of legislative acquiescence or rewrite § 29-2204 |
| Whether Schnabel was wrongly decided and should be overruled | Casterline: Schnabel misapplied § 29-2204 and should be overturned | State: Schnabel and its progeny are controlling; subsequent cases treated life as a term-of-years for sentencing purposes | Court refused to overrule Schnabel and adhered to Marrs, Moore, Abdulkadir |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (affirming permissibility of life-to-life sentences)
- State v. Moore, 277 Neb. 111 (same)
- State v. Abdulkadir, 286 Neb. 417 (same)
- State v. Schnabel, 260 Neb. 618 (holding a flat life sentence implies the statutory minimum)
- State v. Castaneda, 287 Neb. 289 (addressing Miller-related parole opportunity issues)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. Supreme Court decision on juvenile life sentences and meaningful opportunity for parole)