State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203

Jesus A. Chacon pled no contest to two Class IV felony counts of possession of methamphetamine (one from July 16, 2015; one from December 28, 2015) and a Class W misdemeanor DUI (second offense) as part of a multi-case plea agreement.
July 16, 2015 offense: methamphetamine (2.3 g) found in vehicle after initial false identification; charged under pre‑August 30, 2015 law.
December 28, 2015 offense: traffic stop revealed methamphetamine in vehicle and on person; DUI (second) and related driving offenses charged.
Presentence investigation revealed extensive criminal history, multiple failed probations, substance-abuse and mental-health issues, and high risk for recidivism; court concluded probation inappropriate and ordered treatment via incarceration.
District court sentenced (March 30, 2016) in consolidated hearing: Case S-16-419 (July offense) — 20 months to 5 years; Case S-16-425 (Dec. offense) — possession: 2 years with 12 months postrelease supervision; DUI: 6 months jail, $500 fine, 18-month license suspension; sentences concurrent.
On appeal, Chacon challenged excessiveness of sentences; State moved appeals consolidated; while appeal pending, L.B. 1094 (April 20, 2016) amended sentencing statutes applicable to Class IV felonies.

Issue	Chacon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the 20 mo.–5 yr. sentence in S-16-419 for possession was excessive	Sentence abused discretion given mitigating factors	Sentence within statutory limits and properly considered sentencing factors	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors (age, history, treatment needs)
Whether the 2-yr. determinate sentence with 12 months postrelease in S-16-425 for possession was excessive	Sentence excessive under sentencing factors	Sentence complied with statutes in effect at sentencing	Sentence within limits and not an abuse of discretion, but court applied intervening statutory change (L.B. 1094) retroactively as plain error and vacated sentence; remanded for resentencing
Whether L.B. 1094 applies retroactively to Chacon's S-16-425 sentence	L.B. 1094 should apply, mitigating punishment post-sentencing before final judgment	Initially trial court followed law in effect at sentencing (pre-L.B. 1094)	Applying Randolph doctrine and statutory language, L.B. 1094 applies retroactively; resentencing required under §29-2204.02(4)
Whether the DUI sentence challenge is preserved on appeal	(Argued generally that overall sentence excessive)	Error not specifically argued for DUI	Not considered — claim not specifically assigned and argued, so court declined review

State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 (Neb. 2016) (standards for reviewing within‑limits sentences and sentencing factors)
State v. Aguallo, 294 Neb. 177 (Neb. 2016) (application of sentencing changes to offenses committed before statutory change)
State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297 (Neb. 1971) (amended criminal statutes that mitigate punishment apply to pending cases absent legislative direction creating a new crime)
State v. Duncan, 291 Neb. 1003 (Neb. 2015) (distinguishing new‑crime changes from penalty amendments for Randolph analysis)
State v. Samayoa, 292 Neb. 334 (Neb. 2015) (appellate court may notice plain error)
State v. Raatz, 294 Neb. 852 (Neb. 2016) (statutory interpretation principles; in pari materia construction)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (Neb. 2014) (errors must be specifically assigned and argued to be considered on appeal)