State v. Huston, 298 Neb. 323

Background

In Nov. 2016, Brianna L. Huston pled guilty in Hall County to first-offense driving during revocation; county court sentenced her to 45 days jail, 6 months probation, and revoked her driver’s license for 1 year.
The county court ordered the mandatory 1-year revocation based on this court’s prior interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-4,108 in State v. Frederick.
Huston appealed the revocation portion of her sentence to the district court, which affirmed; she then timely appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
While the appeal was pending, L.B. 263 (effective Aug. 24, 2017) amended § 60-4,108 to permit courts discretion to forgo revocation when a defendant is placed on probation.
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the amendment, which mitigates punishment, applies retroactively under State v. Randolph and related precedent, and whether Huston is entitled to relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Huston)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the 2017 amendment to § 60-4,108 (L.B. 263) applies to Huston’s sentence even though the offense occurred before the amendment	The amendment mitigates punishment and, under Randolph, applies because final judgment had not yet issued; Huston should get the benefit of discretionary revocation	The State acknowledged the amendment might affect Huston under Randolph but argued matters accordingly (i.e., the amendment’s effect was at issue)	The amendment mitigates punishment and applies retroactively; Huston is entitled to relief
Whether the sentencing court was required to revoke Huston’s license at sentencing and immediately commence revocation	Huston argued the court should have discretion under the amended statute and that mandatory revocation was incorrect	The court below relied on Frederick to assert mandatory revocation was required under the pre-amendment statute	The county court was bound by Frederick at sentencing but, because the amendment applies retroactively, the sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing under the amended statute (discretionary revocation)
Whether the court must reach Huston’s other assigned errors on timing and commencement of revocation	Huston sought relief as to timing and commencement	The State defended the original sentence’s timing as within prior statutory interpretation	The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide those subsidiary issues because retroactive application and resentencing resolved the controversy

Key Cases Cited

State v. Frederick, 291 Neb. 243 (affirming conviction and finding plain error for failing to revoke under pre-amendment § 60-4,108)
State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297 (rule that a mitigating statutory amendment enacted after offense but before final judgment applies retroactively unless Legislature provides otherwise)
State v. Lantz, 290 Neb. 757 (discussing application of amendments to sentencing)
State v. Duncan, 291 Neb. 1003 (distinguishing amendments that create new crimes from those that only change penalties)
State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203 (applying retroactive relief principles)
Doty v. West Gate Bank, 292 Neb. 787 (noting appellate courts need not decide unnecessary issues)