State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

Background

In 1999, when he was 17 years, 10 months old, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by jury of first-degree murder for the killing of Lance Perry and was sentenced to life imprisonment; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
After Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, Nebraska courts required resentencing for juvenile homicide offenders; Jackson’s life sentence was vacated and a full mitigation/resentencing was held.
At resentencing the court received expert evidence on adolescent brain development and a forensic psychological evaluation describing Jackson’s youth, institutional misconduct history, program completion, rehabilitation, and reduced risk of future violence.
The State emphasized Fulton’s eyewitness testimony implicating Jackson and Jackson’s past misconduct in prison; defense emphasized Jackson’s youth, limited role, vulnerability to peer influence, maturation, and rehabilitative achievements.
The district court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served, resulting in parole eligibility in roughly 13.5 years; Jackson appealed claiming the court failed properly to apply Miller/Montgomery factors and abused its sentencing discretion.

Issues

Issue	Jackson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Miller/Montgomery prohibit Jackson’s sentence or require release	Miller/Montgomery require meaningful opportunity for release; resentencing must account for youth and rehabilitation and thus life or de facto life is unconstitutional	Jackson was properly resentenced under Nebraska statute; sentence allowed parole eligibility and complied with Miller/Montgomery	Held: Resentencing complied with Miller and Nebraska statute; sentence affirmed
Whether the court failed to consider individualized factors (youth, role, peer influence, maturation)	Court did not sufficiently consider extent of participation, immaturity, vulnerability to peers, or demonstrated maturity since offense	Court held a full mitigation hearing occurred and statutory factors were considered; record supports individualized consideration	Held: Court satisfied Miller by considering mitigating evidence; no error
Whether Miller requires specific, written factfinding on each factor	Jackson argued Miller/Montgomery require explicit findings on circumstances/participation and maturation	State relied on Mantich that neither Miller nor Nebraska law requires specific enumerated findings; statutory procedure suffices	Held: No mandatory specific factfinding required; Mantich controls
Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion/excessive	Sentence is effectively life and excessive given youth and mitigation	Sentence within statutory limits; sentencing judge evaluated evidence and fashioned term permitting parole eligibility	Held: No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (sentencer must consider youth differences before imposing irrevocable life sentence)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (Miller announced a substantive rule requiring retroactive application)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide offenses unconstitutional; meaningful opportunity for release required)
State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders is consistent with Miller; no specific factfinding language required)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (summarizing juvenile sentencing law post-Graham/Miller)
State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (Jackson’s direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)