State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 1999, at age 17 years 10 months, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted of first-degree murder and originally sentenced to life imprisonment; his direct appeal was affirmed.
- Following Miller and Montgomery, and Nebraska precedent, Jackson obtained resentencing because his original sentence was imposed for a homicide committed as a juvenile.
- At the resentencing, the court held a full mitigation hearing: Jackson presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychologist’s report addressing statutory juvenile mitigating factors and risk for future violence.
- Jackson’s institutional record showed many early misconduct reports but improving behavior and participation in rehabilitative programs; letters and reports about community context were submitted.
- The district court considered statutory juvenile factors, the mitigation evidence, and the conviction, and resentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served, producing parole eligibility in about 13.5 years.
- Jackson appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider Miller/Montgomery factors and by not making required specific findings.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and statutory juvenile-sentencing requirements | Court failed to meaningfully consider juvenile characteristics, participation, and rehabilitation; sentence excessive | Court held a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and reports, and crafted a term-of-years allowing parole eligibility | Affirmed: sentencing complied with Miller and § 28-105.02; sentence permissible |
| Whether resentencing required specific written or explicit factfindings on (a) offense circumstances and (b) juvenile characteristics | Miller/Montgomery require explicit findings on participation, immaturity, peer influence, and rehabilitation | No case law or statute requires such specific factfinding; sentencing judge’s consideration suffices | Affirmed: no mandatory specific factfinding required per Mantich and Nebraska law |
| Whether life-without-parole categorical bar extends to juvenile homicide offenders | (Implicit) Jackson relied on juvenile-sentencing principles limiting irrevocable life sentences | State: Miller does not categorically bar life without parole for homicide if individualized consideration occurs | Court reiterated Miller’s individualized-requirement rule: juvenile homicide offenders may receive life without parole only after individualized consideration; here sentence was term-of-years allowing parole |
| Whether sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessive | Sentence failed to reflect mitigating evidence of youth, development, and rehabilitation | Sentence was within statutory limits, based on conviction, mitigation evidence, and sentencing judge’s observations | No abuse of discretion; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must consider youth-related characteristics)
- 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 unconstitutional for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (Neb. 2016) (Nebraska statutory sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders is consistent with Miller; no specific finding requirement)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2017) (summarizes juvenile sentencing law and Miller/Graham principles)
- State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (Neb. 2002) (Jackson’s direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)