State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder for a 1999 killing committed when he was 17 years and 10 months old; he originally received life imprisonment and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- After Miller v. Alabama and its retroactive application in Montgomery, Nebraska resentenced juvenile homicide offenders under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02; Jackson obtained resentencing proceedings and a full mitigation hearing.
- At resentencing the court received expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a psychological evaluation documenting Jackson’s background, institutional behavior, programming, and apparent maturation.
- The district court considered statutory juvenile mitigating factors, received victim‑impact and institutional records, and resentenced Jackson to 60–80 years’ imprisonment with credit for time served, making him parole‑eligible in roughly 13½ years.
- Jackson appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by failing to properly consider Miller/Montgomery factors and by not making required specific findings regarding participation, immaturity, susceptibility to peer influence, and post‑offense rehabilitation.
Issues
| Issue | Jackson’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and Eighth Amendment norms for juveniles | Court failed to properly consider juvenile status, participation, immaturity, and rehabilitation; sentence excessive | Court held a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and evaluations; sentence within statute | Affirmed — court complied with Miller and statute; no Miller violation |
| Whether Miller/Montgomery require specific written/findings about offense participation and juvenile characteristics | Court must make specific factual findings on participation, immaturity, peer influence, and rehabilitation | No textual or case law requirement for particularized written findings; Legislature set sentencing procedure | Affirmed — no mandated specific factfinding; Mantich controls |
| Whether life or de facto life without parole was imposed | Jackson contends his juvenile status makes lengthy term unjust and effectively life without meaningful parole chance | Sentence is a term of years (60–80) with parole eligibility consistent with revised juvenile sentencing scheme | Affirmed — sentence allows meaningful opportunity for release and complies with § 28‑105.02 |
| Adequacy of mitigation proceedings and record support for sentence | Mitigation evidence (development, rehabilitation) required fuller credit and shorter term | Full mitigation hearing held; court considered expert reports, PSI, letters, misconduct history, and demeanor | Affirmed — sentencing court exercised discretion after hearing and presentence investigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must account for youth differences)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule that must be applied retroactively)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole is unconstitutional for nonhomicide juvenile offenders; juveniles must have a meaningful chance for release)
- State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (Neb. 2014) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juveniles convicted of homicide is consistent with Miller)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2017) (summarizes juvenile sentencing law under Miller/Graham/Montgomery)
- State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (Neb. 2002) (Jackson’s direct‑appeal decision affirming conviction and original life sentence)