State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203

Jesus A. Chacon pled no contest to two Class IV felony counts of methamphetamine possession (one from July 16, 2015; one from December 28, 2015) and one Class W misdemeanor for driving under the influence (DUI), second offense, pursuant to a plea agreement that dismissed other charges and recommended concurrent sentences.
July 16, 2015 offense: officers found methamphetamine (2.3 grams) in Chacon’s vehicle after he initially gave a false name and was arrested on outstanding warrants.
December 28, 2015 offense: officers stopped Chacon for traffic violations, observed signs of stimulant use, found methamphetamine in the vehicle and on his person, and arrested him for DUI (second offense) and possession.
Presentence investigation showed Chacon (45) had extensive prior criminal history, multiple prior DUI and probation failures, high/very high risk for recidivism and substance abuse, mental health issues, and prior noncompliance with treatment.
District court sentenced: in S-16-419 (July offense) — 20 months to 5 years (DOC) for possession; in S-16-425 (Dec. offense) — 2 years with 12 months postrelease supervision for possession, plus 6 months jail, $500 fine, and 18-month license suspension for DUI; all sentences concurrent. Chacon appealed, claiming excessiveness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 20-mo to 5-yr sentence (S-16-419) for Class IV possession was excessive	Chacon: sentence excessive given circumstances	State: within statutory limits and justified by record	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; sentence within limits and court considered statutory factors (Oldson).
Whether 2-yr sentence with 12 months postrelease supervision (S-16-425 possession) was excessive	Chacon: excessive under sentencing factors	State: sentence lawful under statutes in effect at sentencing (L.B. 605)	Affirmed as not an abuse of discretion but vacated on plain-error/retroactivity grounds because L.B. 1094 later mitigated penalty; remanded for resentencing consistent with L.B. 1094 and Randolph doctrine.
Whether L.B. 1094 (post-sentencing statutory change) applies retroactively to reduce Chacon’s sentence	Chacon: later statutory amendment should apply	State: argued Randolph and statute interplay require applying change	Held: Under Randolph, L.B. 1094 applies retroactively to Chacon (he was a committed offender when L.B. 1094 took effect); sentence vacated and remanded.
Whether the DUI sentence in S-16-425 is reviewable here	Chacon: brief claimed overall sentence excessive but only argued possession sentence	State: argued assignment/argument requirement	Held: Not considered — Chacon failed to specifically assign and argue excessiveness of the DUI sentence, so appellate court did not review it.

State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718, 884 N.W.2d 10 (sentencing review—abuse of discretion; factors to consider)
State v. Aguallo, 294 Neb. 177, 881 N.W.2d 918 (L.B. 605 penalties do not apply to offenses committed prior to Aug. 30, 2015)
State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297, 183 N.W.2d 225 (amendment mitigating punishment after commission but before final judgment applies retroactively absent contrary legislative direction)
State v. Duncan, 291 Neb. 1003, 870 N.W.2d 422 (distinguishing new crimes from penalty changes for Randolph analysis)
State v. Samayoa, 292 Neb. 334, 873 N.W.2d 449 (appellate court may note plain error)
State v. Raatz, 294 Neb. 852, 885 N.W.2d 38 (statutory interpretation—plain meaning; in pari materia construction)
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777, 857 N.W.2d 334 (statutory interpretation standard)
State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77, 834 N.W.2d 799 (statutory interpretation standard)