State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

In 1999, when he was 17 years and 10 months old, Earnest D. Jackson was tried for the murder of Lance Perry; a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and acquitted him of a separate deadly-weapon enhancement. He was originally sentenced to life imprisonment.
On direct appeal the conviction and life sentence were affirmed. Postconviction, following Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, the district court vacated Jackson’s life sentence and ordered a resentencing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02 (juvenile homicide sentencing amendments).
At resentencing the court conducted a full mitigation hearing: defense presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a psychological evaluation showing maturation and institutional programming; extensive letters and exhibits were offered. The State emphasized Fulton’s eyewitness testimony and the jury’s first-degree murder verdict.
The court considered statutory juvenile mitigating factors (age, impetuosity, family/community environment, ability to appreciate consequences, intellectual capacity) and a presentence investigation; it did not make detailed on-the-record findings about Jackson’s degree of participation or each Miller factor.
The court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served (parole eligibility in ~13.5 years). Jackson appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and failed to properly consider Miller/Montgomery factors and § 28-105.02 factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery	Court failed to give meaningful consideration to youth-related factors and to Jackson’s participation and rehabilitation	Court held a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and evaluations	Affirmed — resentencing complied with Miller and § 28-105.02
Whether court needed explicit on-the-record findings as to each juvenile-factor	Miller/Montgomery require individualized findings and explicit factfinding at sentencing	No requirement for specific checklist-style findings; Legislature prescribes procedure in § 28-105.02	Rejected — no specific factfinding required; Mantich controls
Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion/excessive	60–80 years is tantamount to life without parole for a juvenile and is excessive	Sentence within statutory limits; court considered demeanor, record, mitigation, and parole eligibility	No abuse of discretion — sentence affirmed
Whether resentencing court ignored defendant's reduced role and post-offense rehabilitation	Court did not adequately weigh alleged lesser participation and maturation evidence	Court considered participation, expert evaluations, misconduct history, programming, and sentencing factors	Court found record shows individualized consideration; arguments without merit

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates Eighth Amendment; sentencer must account for youth-related differences)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule and must be given retroactive effect on collateral review)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders unconstitutional; juveniles must have a meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (2016) (Nebraska sentencing procedure and § 28-105.02 are consistent with Miller; no requirement of specific verbalized findings at sentencing)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (summarizes juvenile-sentencing principles post-Graham and Miller and discusses appropriate consideration of youth-related factors)