State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
Neb.2017Background
- In 1999, when he was 17 years and 10 months old, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder for the killing of Lance Perry; he was acquitted of the separate deadly-weapon charge and originally sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Postconviction proceedings challenged the life sentence as unconstitutional for a juvenile; following Miller and Montgomery, the district court vacated Jackson’s life term and ordered a resentencing under Nebraska’s amended juvenile homicide sentencing statute (§ 28-105.02).
- At resentencing the court held a full mitigation hearing: expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychological evaluation addressing statutory mitigating factors (age, impulsivity, family/community, understanding of consequences, intellectual capacity) plus evidence of Jackson’s institutional rehabilitation.
- The State emphasized the jury’s guilty verdict, eyewitness testimony implicating Jackson as the shooter, and Jackson’s misconduct history while incarcerated; defense stressed Jackson’s juvenile status, relative role, susceptibility to peer influence, and demonstrated maturation/rehabilitation.
- The court considered the statutory factors and psychological reports, sentenced Jackson to a term of 60 to 80 years with credit for time served, making him parole-eligible in roughly 13.5 years; Jackson appealed claiming the court failed to properly apply Miller and the statutory mitigation framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and § 28-105.02 | Jackson: court failed to properly consider juvenile-specific factors (role in offense, immaturity, peer influence, maturation) and make findings required by Miller | State: court held a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and evidence; sentence permitted parole eligibility | Court: No abuse of discretion; sentencing satisfied Miller and § 28-105.02 |
| Whether life without parole is categorically barred for juveniles convicted of homicide | Jackson: Miller limits juvenile LWOP; court must ensure meaningful opportunity for release | State: Miller does not categorically bar juvenile LWOP if individualized consideration occurs | Court: Miller does not categorically bar LWOP for homicide; individualized consideration suffices |
| Whether resentencing required specific written factfinding on extent of participation and other factors | Jackson: specific findings required on offense circumstances and individual factors | State: statutory sentencing procedure controls; no requirement for particularized written findings beyond considering factors | Court: No requirement for explicit factfinding language; Mantich controls, and statute/proceedings were consistent with Miller |
| Whether the sentence was excessive or an abuse of discretion | Jackson: sentence (60–80 years) excessive given youth, role, and rehabilitation | State: within statutory limits; court properly weighed aggravation and mitigation | Court: Sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders violates Eighth Amendment; sentencer must consider youth-related factors)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule requiring retroactive relief)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile nonhomicide offenders cannot be sentenced to life without parole; must have meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (2016) (Nebraska sentencing statute and procedure for juvenile homicide offenders satisfy Miller; no specific factfinding formula required)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (discussion of juvenile sentencing principles under Miller and Graham)
- State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (2002) (Jackson’s original direct appeal affirming conviction and life sentence)