State v. Honken, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 352

Honken arranged two separate murder-for-hire agreements to kill his wife: one with Derrick Shirley (texts and a $400 payment, Jan 16–Feb 16, 2016) and a later one arranged via Mario Flores and an undercover officer (Feb 26–29, 2016) in which Honken gave a photo, map, and a $500 downpayment.
Shirley communicated that he backed out; Honken’s last text to Shirley on Feb 16 thanked him for "backing down." There was no further contact between Honken and Shirley after Feb 16.
Ten days later Honken sought another hitman, met Flores on Feb 26, met the undercover officer, paid $500, and was arrested after giving identifying information and funds.
The State charged two counts of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder: count I Jan 16–Feb 16, count II Feb 26–29. Honken moved to dismiss claiming double jeopardy; the court overruled and, after a stipulated bench trial, convicted on both counts.
Sentences: two concurrent terms of 45–50 years (within the Class II felony statutory range). Honken appealed asserting double jeopardy, excessive sentence, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Issue	Honken's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy — were two conspiracies one continuous conspiracy?	The agreements with Shirley and later with Flores were the same continuous conspiracy; convicting on two counts produces multiple punishments for the same offense.	The agreements were distinct: Shirley withdrew (Feb 16), there was a 10-day gap, different coconspirators, different overt acts and meetings—so two separate conspiracies.	Affirmed: two separate conspiracies (Shirley withdrew; 10‑day break; different actors and acts). No double jeopardy violation.
Excessive sentence	Sentences are excessive; court failed to adequately consider mitigating factors (substance use, later bipolar diagnosis, lack of physical violence).	Sentences are within statutory limits; court considered sentencing factors and the seriousness, planning, and risk to victim.	Affirmed: within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion; record shows court considered relevant factors.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel failed to raise mental-health–related affirmative defenses earlier.	No sufficient record on direct appeal to assess trial strategy or evaluations; claim requires further development.	Not resolved on direct appeal: record inadequate to decide; may require evidentiary hearing.

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑evidence test for double jeopardy)
United States v. Thomas, 759 F.2d 659 (8th Cir. 1985) (totality‑of‑circumstances test for distinguishing multiple conspiracies)
Savage v. State, 212 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2013) (separate conspiracies require distinct, independent agreements; break in continuity creates new conspiracy)
State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834 (Neb. 2016) (elements and withdrawal rules for conspiracy under Nebraska law)