State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

Background

In 2000 Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder for a 1999 killing when he was 17 years, 10 months old and sentenced to life imprisonment. His direct appeal was affirmed.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Nebraska precedent, the district court vacated Jackson’s life term and ordered resentencing consistent with juvenile‑sentencing rules.
At resentencing the court conducted a full mitigation hearing: expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychological evaluation were presented, along with Jackson’s institutional record, program participation, letters of support, and a presentence investigation.
The court considered statutory juvenile mitigating factors (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02(2)), the psychological report, and the jury’s conviction, but did not make detailed written findings on each Miller factor or restate Jackson’s precise role in the homicide.
The court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60 to 80 years with credit for time served, resulting in parole eligibility in about 13.5 years. Jackson appealed, arguing the court failed properly to apply Miller/Montgomery and Nebraska statutory requirements and imposed an excessive sentence.

Issues

Issue	Jackson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Miller/Montgomery required vacatur or a different sentence	Miller/Montgomery and retroactivity require meaningful consideration of youth and rehabilitation; resentencing court failed to properly apply these principles	Resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and Nebraska statute; guilt is established and mitigation was considered	Court held resentencing complied with Miller and §28‑105.02; no Miller violation
Whether the court had to make specific factual findings on participation, immaturity, peer influence, and maturation	Court must make explicit findings on extent of participation, immaturity, vulnerability, and demonstrated maturity/rehabilitation	No statutory or Miller requirement for specific factfinding; full mitigation hearing suffices	Court held no requirement for specific enumerated findings; Mantich controls
Whether the sentencing process considered required juvenile mitigating factors	Jackson contends the court failed to meaningfully evaluate those factors and his lesser role	State points to mitigation hearing, expert testimony, presentence report, and statutory factors considered	Court found the record shows the court considered statutory mitigating factors and expert evidence
Whether the imposed 60–80 year term was excessive/abuse of discretion	Sentence is excessive given Jackson’s youth, rehabilitation, and limited role; court abused discretion	Sentence is within statutory limits and appropriately balances gravity of murder with mitigation; no abuse of discretion	Court affirmed: sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile offenders differ and sentencer must account for youth before imposing irrevocable life sentence)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule that must be given retroactive effect)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles in nonhomicide cases; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (2016) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juveniles convicted of homicide satisfies Miller; no requirement for particularized written findings)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (summarizes juvenile sentencing law and Miller/Montgomery principles in Nebraska)