State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

Background

In 2000 Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder for a killing that occurred on August 31, 1999, when he was 17 years, 10 months old; he was originally sentenced to life imprisonment.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana and Nebraska precedent (Mantich), Jackson’s life sentence was vacated and a full resentencing was ordered under the juvenile sentencing statute (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02).
At the mitigation/resentencing proceedings the court received expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychological evaluation addressing statutory juvenile mitigating factors, plus records showing extensive institutional misconduct early in incarceration and subsequent program completion and maturation.
Jackson’s counsel argued his youth, limited role in the killing, vulnerability to peer influence, and demonstrated maturation/rehabilitation warranted a significantly lesser term (suggested 40–50 years with credit for time served).
The State emphasized the jury’s finding of guilt, witness testimony identifying Jackson as the shooter, and Jackson’s misconduct history; the court considered statutory mitigating factors and the reports submitted.
The district court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served (parole eligibility in roughly 13.5 years); Jackson appealed claiming the court failed to properly consider applicable juvenile sentencing principles. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Jackson’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether Miller/Montgomery required resentencing and constrained sentence options	Miller prohibits mandatory LWOP for juveniles; Jackson argued resentencing must account for youth and offer meaningful chance for release	State agreed resentencing required but contended proper factors were considered and conviction stands	Resentencing was required and performed; the new sentence (term of years with parole eligibility) complied with Miller and statute
Whether the sentencing court failed to meaningfully consider juvenile‑specific factors (age, immaturity, peer influence, role)	Court failed to (sufficiently) consider extent of participation, immaturity, and vulnerability to negative influence	Court and State argued the hearing, reports, and testimony show those factors were considered	Court considered statutory factors and expert evidence; no Miller violation found
Whether Miller/Mantich require explicit, detailed factfinding or written findings about each juvenile factor	Jackson said Miller/Montich require express specific findings about each factor and extent of participation	State said no specific factfinding language is required; statute and Miller are satisfied by a full hearing and consideration	Court followed Mantich: specific written factfinding is not mandated; sentencing procedure used is consistent with Miller and statute
Whether the sentence (60–80 years) is excessive / an abuse of discretion	Jackson claimed the sentence was excessive because the court did not properly apply juvenile sentencing principles	State maintained the sentence was within statutory limits, considered mitigating evidence, and reflected seriousness of the crime	Sentence within statutory limits and supported by record; no abuse of discretion — affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller announced a new substantive rule that must be applied retroactively)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses cannot be sentenced to life without parole and must have a meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (Neb. 2014) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juveniles convicted of homicide is consistent with Miller)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2017) (summary of juvenile sentencing law post‑Graham/Miller)
State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (Neb. 2002) (direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)