State v. Dyer, 298 Neb. 82

Anthony P. Dyer pled no contest to enticement by electronic communication device after communicating sexually with an undercover investigator he believed to be a 13‑year‑old and appearing at an arranged meeting with condoms.
Pursuant to a plea agreement the State dismissed other potential charges.
The district court sentenced Dyer to the statutory maximum for a Class IV felony: 2 years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ postrelease supervision.
The sentencing order included an attached checklist (citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑2260) marking five “substantial and compelling” reasons to deny probation; the court also made oral comments at sentencing elaborating some factual bases.
Dyer appealed as excessive, arguing the court improperly relied on the nature of the crime and failed to articulate substantial and compelling, defendant‑specific reasons under § 29‑2204.02(2)(c).
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review, clarified standards from State v. Baxter, and affirmed the lower courts — holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dyer)	Defendant's Argument (State / Court)	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying probation for a Class IV felony under § 29‑2204.02(2)(c)	Court relied improperly on the general nature of the offense and a checklist rather than articulating substantial and compelling, defendant‑specific reasons; failed to state adequate reasoning on the record	§ 29‑2204.02 favors probation but allows denial if substantial and compelling reasons exist; the court relied on defendant‑specific facts (arranged meeting, showed up with condoms) and a risk assessment placing Dyer at moderate‑high risk to reoffend; oral remarks plus the order furnished sufficient reasoning	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion. § 29‑2204.02 tips toward probation but permits imprisonment when substantial and compelling, defendant‑specific reasons (supported by record) exist; oral statements combined with the order satisfied the § 29‑2204.02(3) reasoning requirement

State v. Baxter, 295 Neb. 496, 888 N.W.2d 726 (clarifies that § 29‑2204.02(2) generally favors probation for Class IV felonies and requires the court to state reasoning when withholding probation)
State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557, 900 N.W.2d 757 (standard: appellate review of sentencing for abuse of discretion)
State v. Dyer, 24 Neb. App. 514, 891 N.W.2d 705 (Court of Appeals opinion affirming trial court; affirmed by Nebraska Supreme Court)