State v. Jackson, 297 Neb. 22

In 2000 Earnest D. Jackson was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder for a 1999 killing when he was 17 years, 10 months old and sentenced to life imprisonment; codefendants were tried separately and acquitted.
Following Miller and Montgomery, and Nebraska precedent, Jackson filed postconviction relief raising that his life sentence for juvenile homicide required resentencing; the district court vacated his life sentence and ordered resentencing.
At resentencing the court held a full mitigation hearing: defense presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development and a psychological evaluation showing maturation, program completion, and reduced disciplinary incidents; numerous letters and reports were admitted.
The State emphasized Fulton’s eyewitness testimony that Jackson shot the victim, Jackson’s prior misconduct in prison, and the seriousness of the offense.
The district court resentenced Jackson to a term of 60–80 years with credit for time served, making him parole‑eligible in roughly 13.5 years; Jackson appealed arguing the court failed to properly consider Miller/Montgomery principles and statutory juvenile mitigating factors.

Issue	Jackson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and Nebraska law	Court failed to adequately consider offender’s youth, role in offense, vulnerability to peers, and maturation/rehabilitation	Court conducted a full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and evidence of culpability	Affirmed — court complied with Miller and § 28‑105.02 and did not err
Whether specific written/findings were required as to offense circumstances and participation	Miller/Montgomery require explicit factfindings re: participation and juvenile characteristics	No Nebraska authority or statute requires specific written findings; sentencing judge’s discretion suffices	Affirmed — no specific fact‑finding requirement under Miller or state law
Whether life without parole would be permissible for juvenile homicide absent individualized consideration	(implicit) automatic LWOP unconstitutional for juveniles	(implicit) individualized consideration can justify severe terms	Confirmed: individualized consideration required; juvenile homicide sentencing to life possible if individualized inquiry occurs
Whether sentence was excessive within statutory limits	Sentence did not reflect Miller factors adequately	Sentence within statutory scheme, considered mitigating evidence and offense gravity	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory limits and appropriate

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must consider children’s differences)
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) (juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses cannot be sentenced to life without parole; must have meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (Neb. 2016) (Nebraska juvenile homicide sentencing procedure complies with Miller; no requirement of specific factfinding language)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Neb. 2017) (summary of Miller/Graham principles applied in Nebraska juvenile sentencing)