State v. Dyer, 298 Neb. 82

Anthony P. Dyer pled no contest to enticement by electronic communication device (believed he was communicating with a 13‑year‑old, sent explicit photo, arranged and attended a meeting) and was arrested at the meeting site.
Charge is a Class IV felony; statutory maximum is 2 years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision.
District court sentenced Dyer to 2 years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision, finding "substantial and compelling reasons" why probation would not effectively and safely supervise him and checking five reasons on a statutory checklist (e.g., lesser sentence would depreciate seriousness, public protection).
Dyer appealed claiming the court improperly withheld probation and failed to articulate substantial and compelling reasons tied to his individual characteristics rather than merely the nature of the offense.
Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed; Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to clarify standards under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑2204.02 and Baxter guidance, and affirmed the appellate decision.

Issue	Dyer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 29‑2204.02(2) requires a presumption of probation and forbids reliance on the nature of the offense alone to deny probation	§ 29‑2204.02 creates a presumption of probation and focus must be on defendant's individual characteristics; court improperly relied on crime's nature	§ 29‑2204.02 allows consideration of traditional sentencing criteria (including nature/circumstances of the offense) as part of substantial and compelling reasons	Court: § 29‑2204.02 does tip balance toward probation, but substantial and compelling reasons may include traditional criteria in § 29‑2260 (nature/circumstances of the offense relevant); here district court did not rely solely on offense nature and did not abuse discretion
Whether the district court satisfied § 29‑2204.02(3)’s requirement to state reasoning on the record when denying probation	Court only used a checklist and failed to articulate how reasons were supported by the record, conflicting with Baxter	The court’s sentencing hearing comments, combined with the written order and record (risk assessment, conduct showing meeting and condoms), supply the required reasoning	Court: Although the written order used a checklist, the hearing comments plus record sufficiently connect findings to support the district court’s conclusion; no abuse of discretion

State v. Baxter, 295 Neb. 496 (establishes standards for § 29‑2204.02 sentencing and that the statute "tips the balance" toward probation)
State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557 (standard for appellate review of sentences; abuse of discretion defined)
State v. Dyer, 24 Neb. App. 514 (Court of Appeals decision affirming sentence; relied on facts and risk assessment to uphold denial of probation)