State v. Greer, 309 Neb. 667

Kenneth Greer pled no contest to second degree assault (Class IIA) after a high-speed, alcohol-involved crash that left a 6‑year‑old passenger with traumatic head and spinal injuries resulting in partial paralysis; the State dismissed a DUI causing serious bodily injury charge.
Vehicle data showed Greer was driving ~67 mph in a 25 mph zone; his blood alcohol was .311; he fled the scene and later struck a van two blocks away.
The PSR described catastrophic, long‑term harm to the victim and family (paraplegia, PTSD, ~$850,000 medical expenses); Greer has two prior DUI convictions, a felony possession conviction, multiple probation failures, and a revoked license since 2004.
Defense urged mitigation based on Greer’s age (51), medical condition (cirrhosis), limited education/special‑education background, remorse, and remote prior convictions; Greer apologized at sentencing.
The district court considered the PSR and aggravating/mitigating factors and imposed 19–20 years’ imprisonment (within the statutory maximum of 20 years).
Procedurally, Greer’s first in forma pauperis appeal failed to be perfected because the poverty affidavit had an expired notary stamp and was dismissed by stipulation; Greer timely filed a second appeal with a valid affidavit, raising jurisdiction and sentencing challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over Greer’s second appeal after dismissal of the first appeal	The State (and parties) argued jurisdiction exists because the first appeal was never properly perfected; the second timely perfected appeal establishes jurisdiction	Greer argued the second appeal should proceed; earlier dismissal should not bar review because the first appeal was defective	Court held the first appeal was never perfected due to a defective poverty affidavit, so the dismissal was a nullity; the second timely, proper appeal perfected jurisdiction
Whether Greer’s 19–20 year sentence is excessive / whether the district court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors	State argued the sentence was within statutory limits, the court considered the PSR and relevant factors, and did not abuse its discretion	Greer argued the court failed to tailor the sentence to him and did not adequately weigh mitigating factors (age, education, mentality, criminal history)	Court held no abuse of discretion: sentencing judge considered appropriate factors (via PSR and record) and the sentence was not untenable; affirmed

Porter v. Porter, 959 N.W.2d 235 (Neb. 2021) (appellate courts must determine their jurisdiction as a matter of law)
State v. Melton, 953 N.W.2d 246 (Neb. 2021) (requirements for perfecting an in forma pauperis appeal under §25‑1912 and §29‑2306)
L. J. Vontz Constr. Co. v. City of Alliance, 500 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1993) (dismissal of an appeal without examination on the merits generally operates as an affirmance)
In re Estate of Marsh, 17 N.W.2d 471 (Neb. 1945) (same rule regarding dismissed appeals)
State v. Gray, 949 N.W.2d 320 (Neb. 2020) (standard for reviewing sentences within statutory limits for abuse of discretion)
State v. McCulley, 939 N.W.2d 373 (Neb. 2020) (trial court need not articulate on the record consideration of each sentencing factor)