State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557

Background

In 1999 Daniel Lee Jones (born Nov. 7, 1981) pled no contest to first‑degree murder for a premeditated stabbing that occurred when he was 16; he was originally sentenced to life imprisonment.
After Miller v. Alabama, Jones filed postconviction relief; the district court vacated his life sentence in 2015 and ordered resentencing.
At the 2016 mitigation/resentencing hearing Jones presented expert testimony on adolescent brain development, a psychologist’s evaluation (opining low violence risk), family testimony about a chaotic, abusive upbringing, and prison records showing good behavior.
The district court expressly considered Jones’ youth and § 28‑105.02(2) mitigating factors but emphasized the planning, brutality, concealment, and maliciousness of the crime.
The court resentenced Jones to 80 years to life with parole eligibility at age 56; Jones appealed claiming Eighth Amendment and due process errors and disproportionality.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 80‑to‑life with parole at 56 is a de facto LWOP violating Eighth Amendment	Jones: parole at 56 is effectively life without parole given life expectancy; denies meaningful opportunity for release	State: parole eligibility, consideration of youth, and sentencing discretion suffice; life expectancy not controlling	Court: No. Parole eligibility provides a meaningful opportunity; sentence constitutional
Whether court violated due process by not making specific findings about age‑related characteristics	Jones: court needed explicit findings (e.g., "irreparable corruption" vs transient immaturity)	State: specific factual finding requirement applies only to LWOP; no such requirement when parole remains possible	Court: No error; specific findings not required here; court considered § 28‑105.02 factors and mitigation evidence
Whether sentence is unconstitutionally disproportionate	Jones: his youth and rehabilitation warrant lesser sentence; sentence excessive compared to other juveniles resentenced under Miller	State: crime’s planning, brutality, concealment, and offender’s role justify severe sentence	Court: Sentence not grossly disproportionate given offense gravity and individualized consideration
Whether sentencing complied with Miller and § 28‑105.02	Jones: court failed to adequately account for youth characteristics and Miller’s requirements	State: court reviewed Miller, mitigation evidence, and statutory factors	Court: Sentencing complied with Miller, Montgomery, and § 28‑105.02; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (applying Miller retroactively on collateral review)
State v. Garza, 295 Neb. 434 (no requirement of explicit factual findings when parole remains possible)
State v. Smith, 295 Neb. 957 (meaningful opportunity for release requirement; life expectancy not dispositive)
State v. Nollen, 296 Neb. 94 (Eighth Amendment sentencing review is a question of law)