State v. Jackson
297 Neb. 22
Neb.2017Background
- In 1999, when he was 17 years and 10 months old, Earnest D. Jackson was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; his direct appeal was previously affirmed by this Court.
- After Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana, and this Court’s decision in State v. Mantich, Jackson sought resentencing because his original life sentence was imposed for a juvenile homicide.
- The district court vacated Jackson’s life sentence and held a full mitigation/resentencing hearing where evidence of adolescent brain development, Jackson’s background, institutional record, program participation, and psychological evaluations were admitted.
- Jackson presented evidence of immaturity, peer influence, rehabilitation, and post‑incarceration maturation; the State emphasized eyewitness testimony tying Jackson to the killing and his misconduct record.
- The court resentenced 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, arguing the court failed to properly apply Miller/Montgomery factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing complied with Miller/Montgomery and Nebraska’s juvenile sentencing statute | Jackson: court failed to properly consider and make findings on youth, immaturity, role in offense, and rehabilitation | State: court conducted full mitigation hearing, considered statutory factors and evidence of culpability | Affirmed — court considered required factors; sentence complies with Miller and § 28‑105.02 |
| Whether resentencing required specific, individualized factual findings about participation and youth factors | Jackson: Miller/Montgomery require explicit findings on each factor | State: no such specific factfinding requirement; statute and hearing process suffice | Affirmed — no mandatory specific written findings required per Mantich; discretion remains with sentencing judge |
| Whether sentence was effectively life without parole in violation of Eighth Amendment | Jackson: original life sentence for juvenile violated Eighth Amendment; resentencing must remedy | State: resentencing produced term‑of‑years with parole eligibility, consistent with statute and precedent | Affirmed — term (60–80 years) allows parole eligibility and meets constitutional requirements |
| Whether sentence was excessive/abuse of discretion | Jackson: court abused discretion by not adequately weighing mitigating evidence and role | State: judge properly weighed conviction gravity, mitigating evidence, demeanor, and record | Affirmed — within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (sentencer must account for youth-related differences before imposing irrevocable life without parole)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller rule is a substantive rule that must be applied retroactively)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (life without parole unconstitutional for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- State v. Mantich, 295 Neb. 407 (Nebraska sentencing procedure and statute for juveniles is consistent with Miller)
- State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (summarizing juvenile sentencing law and Miller principles for Nebraska)
- State v. Jackson, 264 Neb. 420 (direct appeal affirming conviction and original sentence)