State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
Neb.2017Background
- In 1999, when he was 17 years, 10 months old, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder for the killing of Lance Perry and sentenced to life imprisonment; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Post‑Miller and Montgomery, Nebraska vacated Jackson’s life sentence and ordered a resentencing under the juvenile homicide sentencing framework enacted in § 28‑105.02, which prescribes a 40‑year minimum and requires consideration of enumerated mitigating factors.
- At resentencing the court held a full mitigation hearing: defense presented psychiatric and psychological evidence about adolescent brain development, Jackson’s background, institutional record, program completion, and evidence of maturation and low assessed future‑violence risk.
- The State emphasized Fulton’s eyewitness testimony that Jackson shot Perry, Jackson’s prior misconducts in prison, and the seriousness of the offense, arguing lengthy incarceration was appropriate.
- The district court sentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served, calculating parole eligibility in roughly 13½ years; Jackson appealed, arguing the court failed properly to apply Miller/Montgomery and § 28‑105.02 factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and juvenile sentencing statute | Court failed to properly consider Miller factors (extent of participation, immaturity, peer influence, and demonstrated rehabilitation) and made no specific findings | Court conducted full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors, and must weigh severity of crime and conviction | Affirmed — record shows mitigation hearing and consideration of statutory/Miller factors; sentence permissible |
| Whether resentencing required specific factual findings on each Miller factor | Miller/§ 28‑105.02 require individualized consideration but not specific written factfindings | Legislature’s procedure (§ 28‑105.02) and case law do not mandate explicit written findings | Held — no specific factfinding requirement; trial court’s consideration sufficed |
| Whether a juvenile homicide offender may receive life without parole or equivalent | Jackson argues Eighth Amendment forbids life terms without meaningful parole opportunity | State argues Miller does not categorically bar life for homicide juveniles; sentencing must account for youth and mitigation | Court follows Miller/Montgomery: juveniles can receive life only after individualized consideration; Jackson’s sentence allowed parole eligibility and complied |
| Whether sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion | Sentence improperly long given mitigation and Jackson’s rehabilitation | Sentence within statutory limits and sentencing judge may weigh crime seriousness and demeanor | Held — no abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and appropriately considered factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must consider youth and its characteristics)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a new substantive rule with retroactive effect)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders unconstitutional; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (Neb. 2016) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders consistent with Miller)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2017) (articulating application of juvenile sentencing principles in Nebraska)
- State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (Neb. 2002) (Jackson’s direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)