State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

Background

In 1999, when he was 17 years 10 months old, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder for the killing of Lance Perry; he was originally sentenced to life imprisonment. On direct appeal his conviction and life sentence were affirmed.
Following Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana and Nebraska authority requiring resentencing for juvenile homicide offenders, the district court vacated Jackson’s life sentence and held a full mitigation and resentencing proceeding.
At resentencing the court received expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychological evaluation summarizing Jackson’s youth, institutional discipline history, program completion, maturation, and current low assessed risk of violence.
Jackson argued the court failed to properly consider his youth, level of participation, vulnerability to peer influence, and demonstrated rehabilitation, and thus imposed an excessive sentence inconsistent with Miller/Montgomery and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02.
The district court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served, making him eligible for parole in roughly 13½ years; Jackson appealed contending the court abused its discretion by not adequately applying the juvenile‑sentencing principles.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding the resentencing complied with Miller and state statutory procedures and that the court considered the required mitigating factors without requiring specific written factfinding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and § 28‑105.02	Court failed to properly consider youth, immaturity, and mitigation; sentence effectively imposed life without meaningful opportunity for release	Full mitigation hearing was held; court considered statutory factors and psychological reports	Affirmed — resentencing complied with Miller and § 28‑105.02
Whether resentencing required specific, individualized written findings on participation and youth	Jackson: Miller/Montgomery require express findings on offense role, immaturity, and vulnerability	State: No authority or statute requires specific written factfinding; court must consider factors but not make particularized findings	Affirmed — no requirement for specific factfinding; consideration sufficed
Whether sentence was an abuse of discretion / excessive	Jackson: 60–80 years is excessive given his minor role, youth, and rehabilitation	State: Sentence within statutory range; seriousness of offense and conviction justify substantial incarceration	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and subjectively appropriate
Whether juvenile may receive life without parole absent individualized consideration	Jackson: (related) life‑type exposure unconstitutional for juvenile homicide	State: Miller allows life‑without‑parole only where individualized factors considered	Court: Miller permits LWOP only after individualized consideration; here sentence was term‑of‑years and court gave required consideration

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional; sentencer must consider youth and its characteristics)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule and must be given retroactive effect)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole for nonhomicide offenses; must have a meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) (Nebraska procedure for juvenile homicide sentencing is consistent with Miller and does not require specific factfinding)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (summary of juvenile sentencing law emphasizing consideration of youth differences and statutory mitigating factors)
State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (2002) (Jackson’s direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)