History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Huston
298 Neb. 323
| Neb. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • In July 2016 Brianna L. Huston was charged with driving during revocation; she pled guilty in November 2016 to an amended first-offense charge.
  • County court sentenced Huston to 45 days’ jail, 6 months’ probation, and ordered a 1-year driver’s license revocation, relying on State v. Frederick construing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-4,108 (pre-amendment) as requiring mandatory 1-year revocation.
  • Huston appealed the revocation to the district court, which affirmed; she then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
  • While her appeal was pending, 2017 Neb. Laws, L.B. 263 amended § 60-4,108 to make license revocation discretionary for first offenders who are placed on probation.
  • The Supreme Court determined the amendment reduced punishment and thus, under Randolph and related precedent, applied retroactively because Huston’s judgment was not final; the court vacated the entire sentence and remanded for resentencing under the amended statute.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the 2017 amendment to § 60-4,108 applies to Huston and permits judicial discretion to avoid mandatory 1-year revocation when probation is imposed Huston: The amendment mitigates punishment and applies retroactively because final judgment had not issued; court should have discretion instead of mandatory revocation State: The sentencing conformed to the then-existing law (and Frederick); sentence within statutory limits so amendment should not alter outcome Held: The amendment mitigates punishment and applies retroactively; county court must have discretion—Huston’s sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with amended § 60-4,108
Whether the district/sentencing court erred in ordering the revocation to begin immediately Huston: Immediate start was improper State: Immediate revocation was required under prior interpretation Held: Court did not reach merits of this assignment because retroactive application of the amendment requires resentencing; issue unnecessary to decide

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Frederick, 291 Neb. 243, 864 N.W.2d 681 (2015) (court held revocation was required under the pre-amendment § 60-4,108)
  • State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297, 183 N.W.2d 225 (1971) (when legislature mitigates punishment after offense but before final judgment, the defendant receives the milder punishment unless Legislature provides otherwise)
  • State v. Lantz, 290 Neb. 757, 861 N.W.2d 728 (2015) (discussing application of amendments to criminal statutes where punishment is mitigated)
  • State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203, 894 N.W.2d 238 (2017) (addressing retroactive relief principles in sentencing contexts)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Huston
Court Name: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 1, 2017
Citation: 298 Neb. 323
Docket Number: S-17-267
Court Abbreviation: Neb.