State v. Ezell, 314 Neb. 825

Incident: Three plainclothes Omaha gang-unit officers in an unmarked sedan approached a parked vehicle; an officer placed a stop stick, a passenger (Ezell) discharged a firearm wounding one officer, officers returned fire and struck Ezell. Ezell was a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
Charges and pleas: Ezell pleaded no contest to four felonies arising from the incident (assault on an officer; attempted assault on an officer; firearm possession during a felony; possession by a prohibited person).
Motion to disqualify: Ezell moved to disqualify the trial judge, alleging the judge’s spouse is an on-duty deputy sheriff and that impartiality might reasonably be questioned because the victims were on-duty officers; the court overruled the motion.
Procedural posture: Ezell’s interlocutory appeal from the disqualification ruling was dismissed; after sentencing he appealed from the final judgment.
Sentence: The court imposed consecutive terms totaling 96–116 years (aggregate parole eligibility and mandatory discharge dates noted); Ezell appealed claiming disqualification error, excessive and consecutive sentences, and Eighth Amendment violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of judicial disqualification	Judge’s spouse is a law‑enforcement officer but no personal interest or direct connection to case; de minimis interest does not require recusal	Judge’s spouse’s active-duty status and extensive local law‑enforcement relationships create an objectively reasonable question about impartiality	Overruled: absent a direct personal connection, disqualification not required as a matter of law; no abuse of discretion in denying motion
Excessive sentence	Sentence within statutory limits and based on record, criminal history, risk of reoffense, and sentencing factors	Court failed to properly consider statutory sentencing factors and minimized mitigating facts	Held: no abuse of discretion; trial court considered §29‑2260(2) factors and fashioned appropriate sentence
Consecutive sentences	Trial court has discretion to run sentences consecutively; aggregate review for excessiveness	Consecutive imposition produced an excessive aggregate term	Held: consecutive terms are within statutory discretion and not an abuse on the record
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual)	Sentences are proportionate to each offense and within statutory ranges	Aggregate sentence is grossly disproportionate and violates Eighth Amendment proportionality	Held: independent review finds no gross disproportionality as to individual sentences; no constitutional violation shown

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (appearance of objective risk of bias can require recusal)
Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016) (due process requires absence of actual bias; appearance concerns matter)
Rippo v. Baker, 580 U.S. 285 (2017) (recusal analysis focuses on probability of actual bias and objective risk)
Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (Neb. 2017) (abrogated interlocutory‑appeal Richardson exception for disqualification rulings)
State v. Morton, 310 Neb. 355 (Neb. 2021) (aggregate sentence review and principles for proportionality review)
State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 (Neb. 2017) (standard for reviewing denial of disqualification and presumption of judicial impartiality)