State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Earnest D. Jackson was convicted of first degree murder for a 1999 killing when he was 17 years, 10 months old; he was originally sentenced to life imprisonment and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Miller and Montgomery and Nebraska precedent, Jackson obtained postconviction relief and was resentenced after a full mitigation hearing under the juvenile sentencing statute § 28-105.02.
- Mitigation evidence included expert testimony about adolescent brain development, a forensic psychological evaluation documenting Jackson’s youth, institutional record (many early misconducts but improved behavior after age 30), completion of programs and GED, and letters of support.
- The State emphasized the jury’s finding of guilt, eyewitness testimony implicating Jackson as the shooter, and Jackson’s misconduct during incarceration.
- The district court considered statutory juvenile mitigating factors and psychological reports, and resentenced Jackson to 60–80 years with credit for time served (parole eligibility in ~13.5 years); Jackson appealed, arguing the court failed properly to consider Miller/Montgomery factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and § 28-105.02 | Jackson: court failed to adequately consider youth, role in offense, vulnerability to peers, and demonstrated rehabilitation; court needed specific findings | State: mitigation hearing and reports satisfied Miller; court properly considered factors and conviction remained proven | Court held sentencing complied with Miller and § 28-105.02; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether specific factfinding or written findings are required under Miller or statute | Jackson: sentencing court must make explicit findings on participation, immaturity, peer influence, and maturation | State: no mandatory specific factfinding language in Miller or statute; full mitigation hearing suffices | Court held neither Miller nor § 28-105.02 requires specific, formalized findings; record review adequate |
| Whether life-without-parole bar extends to juvenile homicide offenders categorically | Jackson implied Miller bars irrevocable life for juveniles | State: Miller does not categorically bar LWOP for homicide; individualized consideration is required | Court followed Miller/Montgomery: individualized consideration required but LWOP not categorically barred; here sentence allows parole eligibility |
| Whether sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion | Jackson: sentence (60–80 years) excessive because court did not properly weigh mitigating evidence | State: sentence within statutory limits and considered record, victim’s death, and mitigating evidence | Court found sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile sentencer must consider youth-related factors; categorical LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional in mandatory schemes)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller announced a substantive rule requiring retroactive application)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses cannot be sentenced to LWOP; must have meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (2016) (Nebraska sentencing procedure for juvenile homicide offenders consistent with Miller)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (2017) (summarizing juvenile-sentencing law and Miller/Graham principles)
- State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (2002) (Jackson’s direct appeal affirming conviction and original life sentence)