State v. Dill, 300 Neb. 344

Jesse M. Dill pleaded no contest to a Class IIIA felony; the district court imposed 1 year imprisonment plus 18 months postrelease supervision.
The court’s postrelease supervision order required payment of a $30 one-time enrollment fee, a $25 monthly programming fee, a $5 monthly chemical-testing fee, and payment for evaluations/treatment ordered by the supervision officer.
At sentencing, Dill’s counsel objected to the fees, asserting Dill had previously been found indigent and no reassessment of ability to pay had occurred; the court overruled the objections without taking additional evidence.
Dill preserved the objection at sentencing and appealed solely challenging the imposition of the postrelease supervision fees and costs.
The Nebraska Supreme Court treated postrelease supervision as a form of probation and evaluated whether the court abused its discretion in imposing statutorily authorized fees.

Issue	Dill's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing postrelease supervision fees and costs	Fees are excessive and function as a de facto fine; Dill lacks ability to pay and was previously found indigent	Fees are statutorily authorized; Dill failed to tie inability-to-pay or undue-hardship facts to the record	No abuse of discretion; fees are authorized and Dill may seek waiver or modification later if she shows undue hardship
Whether the court improperly delegated authority to the probation officer to order evaluations/treatment (as to costs)	Delegation was improper and thus invalidates fee obligations (argued in brief)	Not squarely raised as assigned error; parties treated conditions as within court’s authority	Not considered on appeal because Dill did not assign this as an error to be reviewed

State v. Hunt, 299 Neb. 573, 909 N.W.2d 363 (2018) (recognizing postrelease supervision in Nebraska sentencing)
State v. Kennedy, 299 Neb. 362, 908 N.W.2d 69 (2018) (discussing statutes governing postrelease supervision)
State v. Phillips, 297 Neb. 469, 900 N.W.2d 522 (2017) (procedural waiver when conditions not challenged at sentencing)
State v. Rieger, 286 Neb. 788, 839 N.W.2d 282 (2013) (court may impose probation conditions authorized by statute)
State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55, 767 N.W.2d 784 (2009) (appellate brief factual recitations must be annotated to the record)
State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203, 894 N.W.2d 238 (2017) (assignment-and-briefing requirements for appellate review)
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276, 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017) (appellate court will not consider arguments not assigned as error)