State v. Hunt, 299 Neb. 573

Background

Keshaud D. Hunt (15 at the time) was charged in Douglas County District Court with attempted second‑degree murder, robbery, attempted robbery, and three counts of using a firearm to commit a felony for two armed convenience store robberies (one victim shot).
Prior juvenile adjudication (2015) for multiple armed robberies with firearms; had been placed in shelter care, returned home on electronic monitoring, and had received various services (therapy, gang intervention), but repeatedly violated supervision and cut off his monitor.
Police linked Hunt to the March 16, 2016 robberies via video, electronic monitoring records, and a tip; facts showed use of a semiautomatic handgun and a shooting at the first store.
Hunt moved to transfer the case to juvenile court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑1816(3); an evidentiary hearing was held where the State introduced the probable cause affidavit and Hunt’s juvenile file; juvenile probation officer testified about services and potential placements.
The district court denied transfer, finding Hunt’s current and prior offenses were violent, premeditated, involved firearms, showed sophistication and gang involvement, and presented a continued danger to the community; the court issued written findings applying the § 43‑276 factors.
Pursuant to a plea agreement Hunt pled no contest to amended charges (use of a firearm to commit a felony, robbery, first‑degree assault). The court denied disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and imposed consecutive prison terms (15–20, 15–20, and 5–20 years), all within statutory limits; Hunt appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying transfer to juvenile court?	Hunt: State failed to prove a sound basis to retain jurisdiction; transfer to juvenile court was appropriate.	State: Evidence (violent offenses, prior adjudication, supervision failures, gang ties) supported retention.	Denial affirmed — district court made specific findings under § 43‑276 and had appropriate evidence to retain the case.
Did the court err by refusing disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code?	Hunt: Court should have used juvenile disposition given his age and potential benefit from youth programs.	State: Juvenile supervision had failed; Hunt posed a public danger requiring adult incarceration.	Denial affirmed — court reasonably found juvenile disposition inappropriate given prior failures and danger to public.
Were the consecutive sentences excessive?	Hunt: Total term (35–60 years) is excessive for a juvenile offender.	State: Sentences are within statutory limits and necessary for public protection given violent conduct and high reoffense risk.	Sentences affirmed — court considered required factors and did not abuse discretion.
Did the sentencing court properly consider youth‑related factors?	Hunt: Age and rehabilitative needs should mitigate sentence or warrant juvenile disposition.	State: Court considered age and other factors but prioritized public safety and Hunt’s criminal history.	Affirmed — sentencing court considered statutory factors and reasonably prioritized community safety.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bluett, 295 Neb. 369, 889 N.W.2d 83 (Neb. 2016) (procedural context on transfer orders and transfer standards)
State v. Stone, 298 Neb. 53, 902 N.W.2d 197 (Neb. 2017) (standards for reviewing sentences and transfer denials)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2015) (allocation of burden and § 29‑1816(3) transfer principles)