State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

Background

In 1999, 17-year-old Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for the 1999 killing of Lance Perry and sentenced to life imprisonment; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
Following U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miller and Montgomery, and Nebraska precedent, Jackson sought postconviction relief arguing his mandatory life sentence was unconstitutional because he was a juvenile at the time of the offense.
The district court vacated Jackson’s life sentence and held a full resentencing proceeding under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02, receiving mitigation evidence (expert testimony on adolescent brain development, a forensic psychologist’s evaluation, prison records, letters of support, and sentencing briefs).
Evidence at resentencing showed Jackson’s age (17 years, 10 months), institutional misconduct concentrated early in his incarceration, substantial rehabilitative programming, GED attainment, and expert opinions indicating maturation and reduced risk of future violence.
The court considered statutory juvenile mitigating factors and imposed a determinate term of 60–80 years (with credit for time served), making Jackson parole-eligible in roughly 13½ years; Jackson appealed the sentence as excessive and inadequately reasoned.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and § 28-105.02	Miller/Montgomery require individualized consideration of the offense, participation, immaturity, vulnerability to peer influence, and demonstrated maturity; resentencing court failed to expressly consider or make findings on these factors	Court held a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and reports, and Jackson’s guilt was not relitigated; sentence need not be life without parole and may be a term of years	Affirmed: court complied with Miller/Montgomery and § 28-105.02; sentence upheld
Whether specific written or explicit factfinding is required at resentencing	Jackson: sentencing court had to make explicit findings on each Miller factor	State: no statutory or Miller requirement for particularized written findings; hearing and consideration suffice	Held: no requirement for specific factfinding; Nebraska procedure satisfies Miller
Whether sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessive	Jackson: 60–80 years (practical life term) is excessive given his juvenile status and rehabilitation	State: sentence within statutory limits, based on seriousness of murder, jury conviction, and mitigation considered	Held: within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion
Whether resentencing improperly relied on prior findings or failed to consider defendant's lesser role	Jackson: jury found he did not personally fire a weapon and aiding principals were acquitted, so court should weigh participation heavily	State: sentencing properly considered conviction and full record; court expressly considered statutes and reports	Held: court considered participation and records sufficiently; no error

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile offenders require individualized sentencing consideration; categorical life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional in mandatory settings)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule requiring retroactive application)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses is unconstitutional; juveniles must have meaningful chance for release)
State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (2016) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders is consistent with Miller)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (summarizes juvenile sentencing law and Miller/Graham principles)
State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (2002) (Jackson’s direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)