State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

In 2000, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted of first‑degree murder for a 1999 killing committed when he was 17 years, 10 months old; 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, Nebraska vacated Jackson’s life sentence and held a full resentencing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑105.02, which implements Miller’s requirement to consider youth‑related mitigating factors.
At the mitigation/resentencing hearings the court received expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychological evaluation describing Jackson’s childhood, institutional record, program completion, disciplinary history, and low assessed risk for future violence.
Jackson argued his resentencing court failed to properly consider Miller factors (extent of participation, immaturity, vulnerability to peer influence, and demonstrated maturation/rehabilitation) and that the sentence was therefore excessive.
The district court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60 to 80 years with credit for time served, yielding parole eligibility in approximately 13.5 years; Jackson appealed the resentencing.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery	Court failed to properly consider Miller factors and make specific findings on participation, immaturity, peer influence, and rehabilitation	Full mitigation hearing and evidence satisfied Miller; conviction facts support a substantial sentence	Affirmed — resentencing complied with Miller and § 28‑105.02; no specific factfinding language required
Whether life without parole is categorically barred for juvenile homicide offenders	(implicit) Jackson sought relief from effectively de facto life without parole	State emphasized constitutionality allows life without parole for juveniles only after individualized consideration	Court noted Miller does not categorically bar LWOP for homicide; Jackson was not given LWOP and sentence allows parole eligibility
Whether resentencing required written findings on specific youth factors	Jackson argued specific findings required	State relied on precedent and statutory scheme; hearing and record suffice	Court held neither Miller nor § 28‑105.02 requires specific written factfinding; record demonstrated consideration of factors
Whether sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion	Jackson contended sentence was excessive given youth and rehabilitation	State argued gravity of offense, jury conviction, and record justified substantial term	No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and appropriate given circumstances

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (sentencer must consider youth differences before imposing irrevocable life term)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule; requires retroactive application)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole unconstitutional for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders consistent with Miller)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (summarizes juvenile sentencing law and Miller principles in Nebraska)