State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In 2000 Earnest D. Jackson (then 17 years, 10 months) was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; this conviction and sentence were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Nebraska precedent, the district court vacated Jackson’s life sentence and ordered a resentencing hearing under the juvenile‑homicide sentencing framework.
- At resentencing the court held a full mitigation hearing: defense presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychologist’s evaluation showing maturation, program completion, declining misconduct, and low assessed future‑violence risk; numerous support letters and other materials were admitted.
- The State emphasized the jury conviction, eyewitness Fulton’s identification that Jackson shot the victim, and Jackson’s institutional misconduct history.
- The district court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60 to 80 years with credit for time served (parole eligibility calculated at about 13.5 years); Jackson appealed, arguing the court failed to properly apply Miller/Montgomery principles and statutory mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing violated Miller/Montgomery by not giving meaningful consideration to juvenile‑specific factors | Court failed to adequately consider offense circumstances, Jackson’s role, immaturity, vulnerability to peer influence, and rehabilitation | Court held a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and evaluations; conviction remains valid and sentencing discretion applies | Affirmed — sentencing complied with Miller and § 28‑105.02; no Miller violation |
| Whether resentencing required specific, articulated factfinding on each Miller factor | Jackson argued the court needed explicit findings on participation, immaturity, vulnerability, and rehabilitation | State argued no specific factfinding language is required; judge’s consideration is sufficient | Affirmed — Nebraska precedent (Mantich) does not require specific written findings |
| Whether sentence was an abuse of discretion or excessive within statutory limits | Sentence is excessive given juvenile status and rehabilitation evidence | Sentence is within statutory limits and reflected judge’s subjective judgment considering all evidence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; appropriateness is subjective and supported by record |
| Whether Miller retroactivity and Nebraska statutory scheme were properly applied | Jackson contended resentencing protections mandated by Miller/Montgomery were not satisfied | State maintained resentencing followed statutory juvenile sentencing procedure and Miller/Montgomery guidance | Affirmed — resentencing proceeded under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02 consistent with Miller/Montgomery |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (sentencer must consider how juveniles differ and that those differences counsel against irrevocable life sentences)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule requiring retroactive relief)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses; juveniles must have meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (Neb. 2016) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juveniles convicted of homicide complies with Miller and does not require specific written factfinding)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2017) (summarizing juvenile sentencing law and Miller/Graham principles)