State v. Jackson
899 N.W.2d 215
Neb.2017Background
- Earnest D. Jackson was convicted in 2000 of first degree murder for a 1999 killing committed when he was 17 years, 10 months old; he was originally sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Following U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miller and Montgomery and Nebraska precedent, Jackson obtained resentencing; a mitigation/resentencing hearing was held in 2016.
- Evidence at resentencing included expert testimony about adolescent brain development, a psychological evaluation addressing statutory juvenile mitigating factors, Jackson's institutional record (including many past misconducts but improved behavior and programming), and letters of support.
- The district court considered statutory juvenile sentencing factors (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02), mitigation evidence, and the jury conviction, and resentenced Jackson to a term of 60 to 80 years with credit for time served, yielding parole eligibility in about 13.5 years.
- Jackson appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and failed to properly consider Miller/Montgomery factors and make required findings about his role, immaturity, and rehabilitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sentence that effectively denies meaningful parole opportunity for a juvenile homicide offender violates the Eighth Amendment | Jackson: mandatory life or de facto life without meaningful chance for release is unconstitutional under Miller/Montgomery | State: juveniles may receive life-related sentences where sentencer considers individualized factors; resentencing procedure complies with law | Court: Miller/Montgomery require individualized consideration; Jackson was not given LWOP and sentence complied with Miller and Neb. statute |
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and Neb. § 28-105.02 (consideration of youth, immaturity, role, rehabilitation) | Jackson: court failed to adequately consider/recite circumstances of offense, his participation, immaturity, susceptibility to influence, and postoffense maturation | State: full mitigation hearing held; statute prescribes procedure and court considered required factors | Court: record shows full mitigation hearing and statutory factors considered; sentence lawful under Miller and § 28-105.02 |
| Whether the court was required to make specific written factfindings about the listed Miller factors at sentencing | Jackson: specific findings and articulated considerations required | State: no statutory or Miller requirement for specific findings beyond consideration of factors | Court: no specific factfinding language required by Miller or § 28-105.02; Mantich controls—no mandated explicit findings |
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessive within statutory limits | Jackson: sentence (60–80 years) excessive given youth, role uncertainty, rehabilitation | State: sentence within statutory framework, reflected gravity of offense and mitigation considered | Court: no abuse of discretion; sentencing judge properly exercised subjective judgment after considering demeanor, facts, and statutory mitigation; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (sentencer must consider how juveniles differ before imposing irrevocable life term)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (Miller rule is substantive and retroactive for collateral review)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for nonhomicide offenses; meaningful opportunity for release required)
- State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders satisfies Miller)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (discussing Miller/Graham principles and juvenile sentencing considerations)