State v. Dyer, 298 Neb. 82

Anthony P. Dyer pled no contest to enticement by electronic communication device after communicating with an undercover investigator he believed was a 13‑year‑old and arriving at a prearranged meeting.
Dyer was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision (maximum for a Class IV felony).
The district court found "substantial and compelling reasons" not to grant probation and checked five reasons on an attached checklist (e.g., lesser sentence would depreciate seriousness, public protection, risk of reoffending).
Dyer appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals claiming the court failed to articulate substantial and compelling reasons beyond the nature of the crime; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to clarify § 29‑2204.02 standards (sentencing for Class IV felonies) and to assess whether the district court abused its discretion.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion and that its oral remarks plus the order sufficiently supported the § 29‑2204.02(2)(c) finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 29‑2204.02 requires a presumption of probation for Class IV felonies	Dyer: statute creates a presumption of probation; exceptions must be specific to the defendant	State: statute requires probation except where enumerated exceptions apply, including court discretion under (2)(c)	Court: § 29‑2204.02 tips balance toward probation but allows withholding probation when substantial and compelling reasons under (2)(c) exist
Whether the district court relied solely on the nature of the crime to deny probation	Dyer: court improperly focused on the crime rather than defendant characteristics	State: court considered specific facts and evaluations showing risk of reoffense	Court: district court did not rely solely on nature of offense; it relied on specific conduct and risk evidence
Whether the district court satisfied § 29‑2204.02(3) requirement to state reasoning on the record	Dyer: checklist in order was insufficient; needed articulated reasoning tying record to findings	State: combined sentencing order and oral remarks suffice	Court: combined oral remarks and written order adequately articulated reasoning given timing and Baxter guidance; no abuse of discretion
Whether the imposed sentence length was excessive	Dyer: sentence at statutory maximum was excessive	State: sentence within statutory limits and supported by findings	Court: sentence within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion

State v. Baxter, 295 Neb. 496 (clarifies § 29‑2204.02 standards; statute "tips the balance" toward probation for Class IV felonies)
State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557 (standard for abuse of discretion review of sentences)
State v. Dyer, 24 Neb. App. 514 (Court of Appeals decision affirming district court sentence)